HomeMy WebLinkAboutProvisional Adoption of Ordinance No. 1804, amending Title 18, UDO, Zoning.pdf
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director
Tim McHarg, Planning Director
SUBJECT: First Reading for Ordinance 1804 amending multiple sections of Title 18,
Unified Development Ordinance, Bozeman Municipal Code.
MEETING DATE: June 27, 2011
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action Item
RECOMMENDATION: Conduct a public hearing on Ordinance 1804, and having considered
public testimony, the materials presented in the packet, and the review criteria for adoption of a
zoning ordinance preliminarily approve Ordinance 1804.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: “Having heard and considered public testimony, the materials
presented in the packet, and the review criteria for adoption of an ordinance under the City’s
zoning authority I find that the text of Ordinance 1804 is consistent with the criteria and move to
preliminarily approve Ordinance 1804.”
BACKGROUND: The City manages the development of land within the City boundaries
through Title 18, Unified Development Ordinance. This Title includes zoning, subdivision, and
other review authority. The City monitors its regulations through time to identify ways to
improve. The City Commission and Legislature also set priorities, policies and laws to which the
ordinance must be responsive. A group of amendments have been identified and prepared to
make improvements to the City’s regulations or to respond to recent changes in law.
The draft regulations have been discussed with multiple advisory boards including the Historic
Preservation Advisory Board, Recreation and Parks Advisory Board, and the Zoning
Commission. All have recommended favorably on the draft ordinance. The process of
developing text amendments is on-going. There have been some minor amendments for
clarification since the Zoning Commission held its public hearing.
The draft ordinance shows edits with underlines and strikeouts. Underlined text shows an
addition to existing language. Struck through text shows a deletion. The changes since the
Zoning Commission public hearing are identified by having either a double strike through for
deletions, or if an addition the text is presented in all-capitals. Should the Commission grant
preliminary approval the historical editing will be removed and a simplified underline and single
strikeout draft will be prepared for the final reading which shows the actions of the Commission
on first reading. The edits are also emphasized with red text to make them more readily visible.
128
Principal actions by this ordinance are:
1) Create zoning commission on the same structure as other major advisory boards rather than by
definition.
2) Create certain exceptions from the requirement to obtain a certificate of appropriateness
within the neighborhood conservation overlay district. These exemptions are supported by the
Historic Preservation Advisory Board as a way to spend less time on incidental projects and
make more staff time available to more substantive work.
3) Modify the parkland dedication requirements within the B-3, Central Business, district. This
includes making changes to preferred means of satisfying dedication requirements and
delegating approval authority to the Planning Director.
4) Modify sign requirements for window signs and modify how the allowed sign area is
calculated.
5) Clarify enforcement provisions.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: None at this time.
ALTERNATIVES: The City Commission could decline to approve the draft ordinance or
could propose alternative text.
FISCAL EFFECTS: This ordinance does not have a direct expense to the City. The change to
requirements for a Certificate of Appropriateness shown in Section 2 of the draft would result in
fewer applications being submitted with corresponding reduction in revenue. The change would
reduce Department revenues by approximately $500 per month.
Attachments: Ordinance 1804, Staff report, Zoning Commission resolution and minutes,
Historic Preservation Advisory Board minutes, Recreation and Parks Advisory Board minutes,
memo to Recreation and Parks Advisory Board Subdivision Review Committee.
Report compiled on: June 16, 2011
129
STAFF REPORT
UDO TEXT AMENDMENTS FILE NO. #Z-11021
#Z-11021 City Initiated UDO Text Amendment Staff Report 1
Item: Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment Application #Z-11021, to
create Chapter 2.65, Zoning Commission describing duties, composition, and
related matters for a municipal zoning commission; to amend Chapter 18.28
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay district to create certain exemptions
from requirement to obtain a certificate of appropriateness before beginning
construction and clarifying text of the chapter; to amend Section 18.42.170,
Trash and Garbage Enclosures to require containment of construction
debris; to amend Chapter 18.50 Park and Recreation Requirements to
amend Chapter 18.52 Signs, including but not limited to Section 18.52.020 to
exempt murals from regulation as signs, Section 18.52.050 to modify
determination of window sign area, Section 18.52.060 to modify the formula
for determining allowed sign area on a lot, and Section 18.52.130 adding a
cross reference to City standards for addressing; to amend Section 18.64.010
to allow the Planning Director to approval master site plans; Section
18.64.160 Violation-Penalty-Assisting or Abetting-Additional Remedies to
clarify application of existing enforcement options and authorizing recording
of actions to resolve non-compliance; to create a new Section 18.80.1945
defining a mural; and to amend Section 18.80.3210 the definition of window
sign.
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 Tuesday, June 7, 2011 at 6:00
p.m. in the Commission Room, City Hall 121 N Rouse Avenue, Bozeman,
Montana. Before the Bozeman City Commission on Monday, June 27, 2011
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
This amendment process does not alter the boundaries of zoning districts. The proposed edits in Sections
1, 6, and 8-18 are applicable city wide, Sections 2-5 apply within the Neighborhood Conservation
Overlay District, Section 7 applies within the B-3 Central Business District.
130
#Z-11021 City Initiated UDO Text Amendment Staff Report 2
PROPOSAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The City monitors its regulations to ensure that they are effective and consistent with the purposes for
which they were created and in balance with a broad range of community priorities. From time to time
various possible changes are identified which have potential to improve effectiveness and balance.
Revisions to state law may also require amendment to local ordinances.
Several changes have been identified. The City Commission held a work session on August 31, 2010
where they discussed and gave direction for amendments on several points relating to signs. The various
changes have been drafted into code language to facilitate the public review of the amendments. The
staff is also working with affected advisory boards to obtain comments during the review process. A
summary of the major points is presented below. Additional amendments and sections may be identified
as the final draft of this work is prepared.
The content of the proposed text changes are presented in the shell of an ordinance format. The formal
findings (whereas clauses) will be completed after the Zoning Commission action to incorporate the
various public comments, public hearings, and other components needed. The ordinance shell is noted as
a draft at this stage in the public review process. The text is presented with underlined red text showing
additions to the text and struck through red text showing deletions. A public notice of the hearings
before the Zoning Commission and City Commission has been published in the Bozeman Daily
Chronicle and additional notice has also been provided to interested parties.
Draft Ordinance 1804
Section 1) Currently the zoning commission is authorized by state statute and by definition in the UDO,
see Section 18.80.3250. The proposed change places the Zoning Commission into the same structure as
the other advisory boards under Title 2, Administration. It does not change any duties of the Zoning
Commission as those are established by state law. The number of seats on the commission remains the
same, although there is a provision for alternates in the event a quorum cannot otherwise be provided.
Sections 2-5) This set of changes tidies up several references for internal consistency in the UDO and
creates several exemptions from the requirements for a certificate of appropriateness in the
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. The Historic Preservation Advisory Board has considered
an initial draft of this text and is supportive. They prefer to use the available resources to focus on more
substantive work and spend less time processing minor applications that do not have substantive effect
on the historic character of properties. Proposals which do not meet the exceptions can still be approved,
they will follow the same COA process as currently exists.
Section 6) This new requirement is to help manage on-site waste during the construction process and
lessen impact of adjacent properties of windblown trash. This is a condition that the City Commission
has applied to several projects and has requested that it be included as a base requirement.
Section 7) The City Commission has requested the Planning Department to consider some possible
changes to park dedication requirements. This is being generated by the commentary on park fees on
page 39 of the Downtown Plan, see copy of text below.
“PARK FEE
It is very unusual for development within any downtown to be charged a fee for parks. This is for
several reasons. First, parkland is most usually needed on the outer edge of a community where
families with children are settling. Downtowns do not typically attract that demographic and thus
if development is charged such a fee, in a sense it is subsidizing edge development. This is
131
#Z-11021 City Initiated UDO Text Amendment Staff Report 3
contrary to planning principles involving infill. Second, downtowns usually already have, or are
close to, existing parks with sufficient capacity for more use; rarely are entirely new parks
needed. Finally, the people who live in, work in, and visit downtowns use public space
differently. They tend to use the sidewalks, cafes and coffeehouses for relaxing, passive
recreation and socializing. In some ways parks are superfluous.
We recommend this fee be specifically dedicated to the downtown district and used as a funding
source for the “green” strategies outlined in this plan; improving sidewalks, greening streets and
alleys, creating small parks along Bozeman Creek, and creating or improving other public spaces
and facilities within the downtown.”
There are also other elements of the Downtown plan that discuss development of green spaces which
may include parks. Chapters 9 and 10 of the Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails plan discuss
various goals and objectives for the acquisition and management of parkland. The Commission has also
adopted the following goals to be pursued in 2010-2011. Items 3 and 5 are also seen as being affected by
park dedication requirements.
“1) Enhance Downtown Development Opportunities
1. Utilize the federal HUD grant for the blast site (Finance, CM)
2. Conduct a "Full cost & benefit study: social, economic & traffic considerations for one-way
conversion to 2-way, shared lanes, streetscape improvements and truck route modifications"
as recommended by the Downtown Plan. (Engineers)
3. Increase density in the B-3 district. Bozeman Community Plan (BCP) Implementation Policy
8, 9, 16, 21a, 22, 27, 81. (Planning - Krueger)
4. Implement the remaining parking recommendations identified in the downtown plan and review
and update for the Downtown Parking SID/Cash-in-lieu program. BCP Implementation policies
2, 3, 9, 10, 11. (Planning - Bristor, Parking)
5. Amend UDO to incentivize downtown redevelopment and the construction of multi-story
buildings (Planning - Riley)”
In considering options to address this direction Staff identified several possibilities summarized below.
Options:
A. Leave as is.
B. No requirement for park dedication within the B-3 zoning district no matter how many units are
proposed.
C. Exempt the first five new dwellings in a project from dedication requirements (somewhat mirrors
the exemption for minor subdivisions.
D. Make specific that there is no land required, only cash-in-lieu. Delegate approval authority for
review and acceptance of cash-in-lieu to the Planning Director. This shortens the review process
and eliminates unnecessary effort.
E. Follow the normal cash-in-lieu procedures but adopt a fixed percentage reduction across the
board.
F. The City Commission could pre-designate all cash-in-lieu received to certain projects like
improving Bozeman Creek. This would likely not be code but a separate resolution or other
132
#Z-11021 City Initiated UDO Text Amendment Staff Report 4
action and is not shown in the attached text.
These options were discussed with the Recreation and Parks Advisory Board subdivision review
committee on March 11, 2011. The full Recreation and Parks Advisory Board will consider them on
June 9th. The committee’s preference was a for combination of options D and F to both focus benefits
and simplify the review process for zoning projects. This was also discussed with the City Commission
on May 9th who indicated initial support for the recommendation by the RPAB. The draft text in Section
7 reflects options D and F.
Section 8-12, 16-18) Revisions to the sign code were suggested by staff and directed by the City
Commission last August 31st. They have been incorporated into this code revision effort for
convenience. The revisions are less restrictive than the present wording and allow some additional
flexibility while holding the essential standards intact. The revisions provide incentives for site layout
consistent with the City’s growth policy and regulatory standards for urban design. The proposed
revisions allow additional sign area.
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. 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 adjustments have been
made in the intervening years but the essential components of the regulations have remained the same.
Discussion on specific sign related amendments:
Definitions: Two definitions are modified or created in the proposed amendments. The definition for
window sign is modified to include items hung behind the window. This is a relaxation of the present
wording which only allows the window sign exemption to be used for physically attached signs. A new
definition is created to define murals in a manner that is distinct from signs. This helps to distinguish
when certain regulations are applicable and when not.
Allowed sign types: The amendment does not change the type of signs authorized.
Allowed sign area: The amendments modify how window signs are measured and executed. The
changes allow multiple panes of glass to be aggregated when applying the area exemption for window
signs. The practical effect of this change is to allow a greater amount of sign area as well as greater
latitude in displaying window signs.
Section 13) This section clarifies the existing enforcement provisions as advised by the City Attorney.
Section 14-15) These sections simplify the zoning appeal process and make the timing consistent with
the manner in which time is counted in other portions of the UDO.
Section 16) This section incorporates recent changes in state law regarding zoning protests.
133
#Z-11021 City Initiated UDO Text Amendment Staff Report 5
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
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 18.68.020 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. The City Commission will
address all criteria.
Section 76-2-304, MCA Criteria
A. Be in accordance with a growth policy.
Yes. 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. The various changes proposed in Ordinance 1804 are consistent with the principles of the growth
policy.
“Objective G-2.4: Develop a balanced system of regulatory requirements, programs, and incentives to
ensure that development within the Planning Area is in compliance with the Bozeman Community
Plan.” - The revisions to sign area related to site orientation are an incentive to place buildings and
parking in a manner consistent with the goals of this growth policy. The revisions to certificate of
appropriateness standards for certain exemptions from review procedures encourages the use of those
construction types found to be appropriate for historic preservation. Revisions to the parkland
requirements in the B-3 district will remove a disincentive to development of additional downtown
housing as advocated in the 2nd implementation strategy in the Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan,
a neighborhood plan, under the growth policy.
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
134
#Z-11021 City Initiated UDO Text Amendment Staff Report 6
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: 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.”
Goal G-2: Implementation – Ensure that all regulatory and non-regulatory implementation actions
undertaken by the City to achieve the goals and objectives of this plan are effective, fair, and are
reviewed for consistency with this plan on a regular basis.
Objective G-2.4: Develop a balanced system of regulatory requirements, programs, and incentives to
ensure that development within the Planning Area is in compliance with the Bozeman Community Plan.
B. The effect on motorized and non-motorized transportation systems.
Yes. The amendments as presented have little impact on transportation. Those relating to signs have
been drafted to minimize the risk of distraction to drivers. The amendments do not affect sign locations
which might interfere with driver visibility.
C. Secure safety from fire, panic, and other dangers.
Neutral. It is not expected that these subjects will be affected by these amendments. Most of the
amendments are procedural in nature.
D. Promote public health, public safety, and general welfare.
Yes. The amendments improve the general welfare by advancing the goals and objectives of the growth
policy as described in A, above.
E. Reasonable provision of adequate light and air.
Neutral. None of the edits change setbacks, required area per dwelling, or allowed lot coverage. The
change to parkland requirements recognizes the practical limitations of residential development within
an existing urban area. Contributions may still be made but they will focus more on improving existing
park areas. The building codes and other standards remain in place and will ensure that adequate light
and air is provided.
135
#Z-11021 City Initiated UDO Text Amendment Staff Report 7
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.
Yes. The amendments relating to parkland dedication maintain a requirement to mitigate need for
service but modify the procedural manner to satisfying the mitigation requirement.
I. Conserving the value of buildings.
Yes. These amendments affecting Chapter 18.28 will encourage and simplify the upkeep and
maintenance of existing buildings within the Neighborhood Conservation overlay district.
J. Character of the district.
Yes. The primary character giving standards of the various zoning districts remain essentially
unchanged.
K. Peculiar suitability for particular uses.
Neutral. The amendments are not specific to a particular parcel. The amendments are appropriate to the
areas to which they will apply.
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 Specific to Signs
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 in a residential area in order to avoid
disturbance of the peace. So long as the City applies its rules equitably 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
136
#Z-11021 City Initiated UDO Text Amendment Staff Report 8
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 share 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.
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 place and manner of a sign, it does not regulate timing
of the sign itself or procedures related to the processing of a sign application.
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. The proposed amendment expands the
total amount of potential sign area which could be displayed without need for a permit. 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: There are no changes to the location or setbacks where a sign may be displayed.
5) Manner: There are no changes in the types of sign which can be displayed. There is a clarification
with the creation of a definition for a mural which more clearly allows for artistic expression without a
need for review as a sign. As a mural is excluded from the sign regulations the sign criteria do not apply.
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 complies with or is neutral to the required criteria.
Pursuant to Sections 76-2-304, Montana Codes Annotated, the Zoning Commission shall review 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.
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.
137
#Z-11021 City Initiated UDO Text Amendment Staff Report 9
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 1804 showing the proposed amendments
Graphics depicting information on how the proposed sign changes may occur
Zoning Commission Resolution Z-11021 Ord. 1804 (to be attached prior to City Commission action)
Zoning Commission draft minutes (to be attached prior to City Commission action)
138
Page 1 of 3
RESOLUTION #Z-11021
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
TEXT AMENDMENT APPLICATION THAT WOULD CREATE CHAPTER 2.65
ZONING COMMISSION DESCRIBING DUTIES, COMPOSITION, AND RELATED
MATTERS FOR A MUNICIPAL ZONING COMMISSION; AMEND CHAPTER 18.28
NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT TO CREATE CERTAIN
EXEMPTIONS FROM REQUIREMENT TO OBTAIN A CERTIFICATE OF
APPROPRIATENESS BEFORE BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION AND CLARIFYING
TEXT OF THE CHAPTER; REPLACE ENTIRELY CHAPTER 18.34 SITE PLAN
REVIEW TO CLARIFY TEXT, INCLUDE SITE PLAN PHASING, LIMIT DURATION
OF SPECIAL TEMPORARY USE PERMITS, ALLOW GREATER FLEXIBILITY OF
MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, CAP THE MAXIMUM
DURATION OF MASTER SITE PLAN APPROVALS; AMEND SECTION 18.42.170,
TRASH AND GARBAGE ENCLOSURES TO REQUIRE CONTAINMENT OF
CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS; AMEND CHAPTER 18.50 PARK AND RECREATION
REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICALLY SECTION 18.50.030 CASH DONATION IN-
LIEU OF LAND DEDICATION TO MODIFY HOW THE REQUIREMENT FOR
PROVISION OF PARKLAND IS HANDLED IN THE B-3, CENTRAL BUSINESS
DISTRICT; AMEND CHAPTER 18.52 SIGNS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
SECTION 18.52.020 TO EXEMPT MURALS FROM REGULATION AS SIGNS,
SECTION 18.52.050 TO MODIFY DETERMINATION OF WINDOW SIGN AREA,
SECTION 18.52.060 TO MODIFY THE FORMULA FOR DETERMINING ALLOWED
SIGN AREA ON A LOT, AND SECTION 18.52.130 ADDING A CROSS REFERENCE
TO CITY STANDARDS FOR ADDRESSING; AMEND SECTION 18.64.010 TO ALLOW
THE PLANNING DIRECTOR TO APPROVAL MASTER SITE PLANS; AMEND
SECTION 18.64.160 VIOLATION-PENALTY-ASSISTING OR ABETTING-
ADDITIONAL REMEDIES TO CLARIFY APPLICATION OF EXISTING
ENFORCEMENT OPTIONS AND AUTHORIZING RECORDING OF ACTIONS TO
RESOLVE NON-COMPLIANCE; CREATE A NEW SECTION 18.80.1945 DEFINING A
MURAL; AND AMEND SECTION 18.80.3210 THE DEFINITION OF WINDOW SIGN.
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman has adopted zoning regulations and a zoning map
through its Unified Development Ordinance pursuant to Sections 76-2-301, and 76-2-302
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
139
Page 2 of 3
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 ordinance
and definition in Section 18.80.3250; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 18.68 of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance sets forth
the procedures and review criteria for amendments to the text of Title 18, Unified Development
Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman 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 two public hearings on June
7, 2011, to formally receive and review all written and oral testimony on the proposed text
amendments contained in draft ordinances 1804 and 1809; and
WHEREAS, no members of the public submitted written or oral testimony on the
proposed text amendments and two public agencies reviewed the draft text and supported the
changes; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Commission discussed the offered comments and Staff’s
suggested response and the proposed amendments; and
WHEREAS, after considering staff’s recommendation and discussion amongst Zoning
Commission members, the Zoning Commission found that the application complied with the
Review Criteria;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Bozeman Zoning Commission
officially recommends on a vote of 3 to 0 to the Bozeman City Commission that the City
Commission adopt the recommended amendments in draft Ordinance 1804; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Bozeman Zoning Commission officially
recommends on a vote of 3 to 0 to the Bozeman City Commission that the City Commission
adopt the recommended amendments in draft Ordinance 1809.
DATED THIS DAY OF , 2011, Resolution #Z-11021
140
Page 3 of 3
_____________________________ ____________________________
Tim McHarg, Director Ed Sypinski, Chairperson
Dept. of Planning & Community Development Bozeman Zoning Commission
141
ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 2011
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson Sypinski called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. and ordered the Recording
Secretary to take attendance.
Members Present:
Ed Sypinski, Chairperson
Nathan Minnick, Vice Chairperson
David Peck
City Commission Liaison
Chris Mehl
Members Absent:
Staff Present:
Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director
Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Guests Present:
Kelly Kapinos
Kip Kapinos
ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT {Limited to any public matter within the jurisdiction of the
Zoning Commission and not scheduled on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.}
Seeing there was no general public comment forthcoming, Chairperson Sypinski closed this
portion of the meeting.
ITEM 3. MINUTES OF MAY 17, 2011
MOTION: Vice Chairperson Minnick moved, Mr. Peck seconded, to approve the minutes of
May 17, 2011 as presented. The motion carried 3-0. Those voting aye being Chairperson
Sypinski, Mr. Peck, and Vice Chairperson Minnick. Those voting nay being none.
ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW
Chairperson Sypinski reversed the order of the items under project review.
2. U.D.O Edits ZCA #Z-11021 – Ordinance #1804 City initiated code changes to create Chapter
2.65 Zoning Commission and to amend Sections 18.28.010.A - Intent and Purpose, 18.28.040 -
Certificate of Appropriateness, 18.28.070 - Deviations from Underlying Zoning Requirements,
Page 1 of 5
Zoning Commission Minutes – June 7, 2011
142
18.28.090 – Appeals, 18.42.170 – Trash and Garbage Enclosures, 18.50.030 - Cash Donation In-
lieu of Land Dedication, 18.64.160 - Violation - Penalty - Assisting or Abetting - Additional
Remedies, 18.66.030.C - Filing of Notice of Appeal, 18.66.040.A – Administrative Interpretation
Appeals, 18.70.030 - Public Hearing Procedures and Requirements, 18.80.1945 – Mural,
18.80.3210 – Window Sign. Additional sections may be amended which are relevant to the
same topics if a need to do so is identified during the public review process. (Saunders)
Assistant Planning Director Chris Saunders presented the Staff Report noting the draft ordinance
and Staff report were available on the City’s website along with the notice for the proposal. He
stated the proposed ordinance would put the Zoning Commission under the same statutory
organization as other main advisory bodies and would define membership as well as jurisdiction.
He stated the City was a self governing power which can mean there is additional flexibility, but
for Zoning the City must comply with the State requirements of authorizing statute.
Assistant Director Saunders stated the Historic Preservation Advisory Board and Staff had
discussions regarding the proposed amendment to exempt certain types of work from the
Certificate of Appropriateness review process; he stated the exceptions were limited and
addressed roofing, fencing, smaller scale accessory buildings, and egress windows in the older
part of Bozeman.
Assistant Director Saunders noted that a provision to corral construction waste would also be
included due to the number of complaints regarding construction debris. He noted modifications
to required parkland were also being proposed for the B-3 zoning district downtown and would
include a default option for cash-in-lieu and the approval authority would be delegated to the
Planning Director. He stated the purpose for the combination of changes was to simplify the
review process and requirements for downtown Bozeman.
Assistant Director Saunders stated that there was a group of edits pertaining to signage; the
definition of a mural had been created and the proposed language more clearly indicated what
would be a mural so it could be exempted from requirements and what was signage so there was
no question when each definition applied. He directed the Zoning Commission to examples of
window signage downtown to better depict what was being discussed. He noted the window
divisions would play a factor in the allowable window signage amount. Chairperson Sypinski
asked for clarification that each pane separated by a division of 4 or more inches would be
aggregated in the calculation. Assistant Director Saunders responded Chairperson Sypinski was
correct though each pane could be calculated individually. He added there were also proposed
amendments to modify the allowable sign area as well as the sign area for secondary building
frontages; the purpose was to find ways of counteracting a bias in the language as it exists and
would encourage more of a streetscape with buildings being more closely presented to the street.
He cited an example of a signage calculation under the current restrictions and noted the
proposed code would allow 2 square feet for the first 50 feet instead of 1.5 square feet; it would
make a significant difference for smaller buildings. He stated the sign area calculations for B-1
and R-O district would be modified for multi-tenant buildings as well as the requirements for a
Comprehensive Signage Plan.
Assistant Director Saunders stated the way the City would handle enforcement of zoning
violations would also be clarified while zoning protests would be amended to reflect new
Page 2 of 5
Zoning Commission Minutes – June 7, 2011
143
changes in State Law. He added the evening’s meeting was the first of two public hearings that
had been scheduled for the proposal. He stated no public comment had been received for the
proposal and the Historic Preservation as well as the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
Subdivision Committee were also supportive of the amendments; Staff would meet with the full
Recreation and Parks Advisory Board later in the week. Chairperson Sypinski suggested the
Northeast Urban Renewal and North Seventh Urban Renewal Boards should also be consulted.
Attorney Cooper stated existing subsection 18.64.160.E.2 required the City to release any pre-
recorded non-compliance notice and asked why it had been proposed a second time. Assistant
Director Saunders responded they were two different items and the proposed would address
issues that had been resolved; the intent was to make a notice that the parcel had been reviewed
and what had been approved prior to someone’s purchase arrangements.
Chairperson Sypinski opened the item for public comment. Seeing none forthcoming, the
public comment period was closed.
Vice Chairperson Minnick stated he thought the proposal was clear and stated he was supportive
of the amendments as proposed; he added the Certificate of Appropriateness and sign
amendments would really help expedite the process and would make signage more beneficial to
local business owners.
Chairperson Sypinski stated it was important to note that sections 1 & 6 as well as 8-18 were
City wide while sections 2-5 were specific to the Conservation Overlay District, and some were
specific to downtown Bozeman. He stated he found the application to be in keeping with the
review criteria as set forth in the U.D.O. and would possibly improve some of the conditions set
forth in the review criteria. He stated he was supportive of the proposal with Staff findings as
outlined in the Staff Report.
MOTION: Vice Chairperson Minnick moved, Mr. Peck seconded, to forward a
recommendation of approval to the City Commission for U.D.O. Edits ZCA #Z-11021 –
Ordinance #1804 with Staff findings as outlined in the Staff Report. The motion carried 3-0.
Those voting aye being Chairperson Sypinski, Mr. Peck, and Vice Chairperson Minnick. Those
voting nay being none.
1. U.D.O Edits ZCA #Z-11021 – Ordinance #1809 Chapter 18.34 Site Plan Review to clarify
text, include site plan phasing, limit duration of special temporary use permits, allow greater
flexibility of modification to conditional use permits, cap the maximum duration of master site
plan approvals and to amend Section 18.64.010 to allow the Planning Director to approve master
site plans. Additional sections may be amended which are relevant to the same topics if a need
to do so is identified during the public review process. (Saunders)
Assistant Planning Director Chris Saunders presented the Staff Report noting Staff had been
doing ongoing monitoring of the ordinance and had identified necessary changes. He stated the
decision making authorities would be modified with regard to the City Commission, Board of
Adjustment, and Planning Director. He stated the proposal included an allowance for the
Planning Director to approve Master Site Plans if they had no Variances or Deviations proposed.
Page 3 of 5
Zoning Commission Minutes – June 7, 2011
144
Assistant Director Saunders stated the creation of procedures to review zoning based
development would never cause a deed to transfer land title to be filed with the Clerk and
Recorder’s Office. He stated the amendments would expand the master site plan use for phasing
of development.
Assistant Director Saunders stated there would be modifications to the threshold for the review
of the Design Review Board as the parking allocations were usually the trigger; a 90 space
threshold would be more appropriate. He stated Special Temporary Use Permits would be
restricted to one year increments and clarification of the reuse and redevelopment procedures
had been included so it was clear they would be sketch plans.
Assistant Director Saunders stated phasing would be included in several sections to provide
clarity. He stated several sections had been consolidated as they were pertinent to the
Conditional Use Permit process; modification to CUP approval would be handled as though it
were a modification to an approved Final Site Plan. He added criteria for approval extensions
and clarity of time frames for approvals would also be included. Mr. Mehl asked how Staff had
decided on a five year approval. Assistant Director Saunders responded longer term approval
seemed reasonable for phased developments and the language had been included in the original
text.
Assistant Director Saunders stated the City had been developed long before modern
requirements had come about and noted Staff was modifying reuse/redevelopment procedures
with regard to how aggressive the City should be on existing site circumstances. He stated the
hearings had been noticed and other advisory bodies that would be impacted had been included.
He stated Staff was supportive of the amendments and felt they met the criteria as set forth in the
UDO.
Chairperson Sypinski opened the item for public comment. Seeing none forthcoming, the public
comment period was closed.
Chairperson Sypinski stated a number of comments had been provided by the Zoning
Commission at the Work Session discussion and added he felt more comfortable moving the
proposal forward. He stated he felt the application was in keeping with the review criteria as set
forth in the ordinance.
Mr. Mehl asked for clarification of the City Commission’s right to reclaim jurisdiction of a
project. Assistant Director Saunders responded that once the City Commission reclaimed
jurisdiction, the Planning Director could not make a decision and the City Commission would
have the approval authority, which could be appealed by the applicant.
MOTION: Vice Chairperson Minnick moved, Mr. Peck seconded, to forward a
recommendation of approval to the City Commission for U.D.O. Edits #Z-11021 – Ordinance
#1809. The motion carried 3-0. Those voting aye being Chairperson Sypinski, Mr. Peck, and
Vice Chairperson Minnick. Those voting nay being none.
Page 4 of 5
Zoning Commission Minutes – June 7, 2011
145
Page 5 of 5
Zoning Commission Minutes – June 7, 2011
ITEM 5. NEW BUSINESS
Chairperson Sypinski stated an application had been submitted to the City Commission for a new
Zoning Commission member.
ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT
The Zoning Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m.
Edward Sypinski, Chairperson Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director
Zoning Commission Dept. of Planning & Community Development
City of Bozeman City of Bozeman
146
BHPAB 2011 May 26 - Page 1 of 4
Security Bank model.
Historic Preservation Advisory Board at the HRDC Building –
26 May 2011
Members Present: Mark Hufstetler (Chair), Jecyn Bremer, Bruce Brown, Lesley Gilmore
(Secretary), Jared Infanger, Steve Keuch, Courtney Kramer (City Liaison), Dale Martin, Boone
Nolte, and Ryan Olson, - Quorum established.
Absent: Crystal Alegria, Lora Dalton, Jane Klockman, Paul Reichert, and Anne Sherwood.
Guests: Carson Taylor, City Commissioner Liaison
I. Meeting was called to order at 6:47 pm.
II. Minutes from prior meeting:
A. Motion to approve was made by JC.
B. Motion was seconded by BN.
III. Public Comment: None.
IV. Ex Parte Communication: None.
V. Introduction of Invited Guests: None.
VI. Project Review and Recommendations to Staff:
A. Proposed Reviesions to COA guidelines - RO recommends the revisions with two
modifications.
1. Change the name “sheds” to “accessory buildings.”
2. Under A.1. b. add missing comma
3. The Board unanimously approved the revisions with these modifications.
B. Tax abatement submittal for 308 S. Tracy (which expanded into a general discussion
about the abatement process):
1. CK and MH talked about how to address this. Current thought is to submit a memo
from the
Professional Subcommittee to the commission.
2. The process hasn’t worked too well in the past, reflecting uncertainty as to the
process.
3. This process will provide valuable information to the owner, and defer final review to
the owner to during the construction process.
4. RO: is the idea that the homeowner would come to
the professional subcommittee? MH: this is an
interim process until we come up with a process that
is less prone to subjective opinion.
147
BHPAB 2011 May 26 - Page 2 of 4
Security Bank model.
5. MH: idea is to have staff provide the professional committee with more information;
committee will not be meeting with the homeowner directly.
6. Professional committee has given comments to the staff, who will give it to the
homeowner with provisional approval, based upon final review.
7. CK: it would be unwieldy for an applicant to be subject to a review that only occurs
once per month (based on professional subcommittee review).
8. RO would hate to have someone come in at the end and feel that there were other
issues that should have been addressed.
9. JB: this process wouldn’t address the comments of the full board until perhaps too
late.
10. MH: this is a short-term process until the process is corrected, to be more efficient
and more helpful. We need to address the issue of the ordinance.
11. JB: how was this taken off the agenda? Homeowner processed the application.
12. RO is concerned about how badly the board and city look with this process. And
what really is our plan to rectify this on-going issue?
13. MH: the avenue of difficulty is:
a) Cool looking projects – we have taken a back seat.
b) We need to have more information provided – hopefully the ordinance and
planning staff will provide this.
14. CK: ordinance modification will include requirement for more information from the
homeowner. And probably a staff report.
15. MH doesn’t want the professional subcommittee to have to meet frequently to review
these projects.
16. CK: have staff review the applications. Then have the professional committee and
the board approve as consent agenda item.
17. CK will submit a word document on the ordinance, for all to comment on.
18. MH: should we implement a moratorium of tax abatements?
a) RO: we might be doing more harm than good. Should we enact a moratorium?
b) 308 S. Tracy – they applied before the moratorium, so should still have the
chance to continue their application.
c) CT: How can the commission say we’ll have a moratorium? It’s an ordinance
that people want to rely on. Either you’re telling people to put their project off for
6 months, or we’re going to change the rules.
d) JB: The timing is awkward, as this is the construction season. And, given that
this is an advisory board and not a regulatory board, we should probably not
have a moratorium.
19. LG: Haven’t we agreed that the ordinance clearly states that these are only for
exceptional projects?
20. MH: doesn’t want any more of these to come before the full board and have the
Board look disorganized and conflicted.
21. RO: we should be frank with the applicants that we’re muddling through this process.
22. JB: But this is spirited debate and will continue to be.
23. MH: Let’s be fully pragmatic and have the subcommittee review the applicants.
Then, after the construction is completed, the full board will vote on it. Subcommittee
to present a provisionary memo, to be reviewed upon completion. Shouldn’t approve
a project until complete.
24. CK: Modification to the ordinance will not be able to be prepared by city staff.
25. MH: P&P meeting, inviting all interested parties, to review and modify the ordinance.
Lora is out of town. She suggested June 14, Tuesday, at 6:30pm. LG offered to
host at CTA’s office at 411 East Main Street, Suite 101.
148
BHPAB 2011 May 26 - Page 3 of 4
Security Bank model.
VII. Chair’s Report (MH)
A. Preservation board reappointment and seats:
1. CK said the Aimee will contact members about their expirations.
2. CK will check with Aimee about which categories members should consider.
B. Streetlights
1. Highway signs: Have been installed. Pat CK on the back.
2. Streetlights: Are installed, but not as good as they could be. Just weren’t able to get
the color right. Look glossy and all 20th century. CK noted that there was an
additional shield that can be installed, to shield the light from the homeowners.
Homeowners can request shields.
a) The old lights? BB is trying to salvage and has contacted the city.
b) City is providing one to each household, but no one has come to collect them.
They weigh about1300 pounds a pieces, lots of globes broken.
c) MH: Should some come to Story Mansion, to replace some of the big tall
insensitive lights? Nice to have 3-4 old ones – would improve the appearance
and support the historic character of the property.
d) CT will talk with Chuck Winn and CK will talk with the Friends of the Story. Act
quickly – they might be broken during the remainder of the removal.
e) CK asked Bruce to help them get shields for his parking lighting to comply with
the night sky ordinance.
VIII. Policy and Planning Committee (as relayed by MH)
A. North 7th Urban Renewal Board Meeting: MH and LD gave a presentation to them about
signs. It seems that the renewal board embraces a different more sterile vision than the
HP board does.
B. CK: the North 7th Board was generally supportive of the idea. They liked the notion that
someone was thinking about them.
C. CK: North 7th said that a lot of people have said they don’t want to remodel their
properties since they would be required to change their signs. Could be an excuse for
just not wanting to remodel.
IX. Education and Outreach Committee
A. RO: Committee is focusing on historic resource inventories in lieu of meetings, however
weather has not been conducive.
B. MH: Go surveying. Let the full group know – we’d like to participate. CK: wrap it around
a BBQ. A Thursday night in June? June 21? At Beall Park, E&O will figure it out.
X. Staff Liaison Report
A. CK: Installation of brown historic district signs is imminent – next two weeks. The signs
have been made and paid for. Will have a ribbon cutting concurrent with that for the
highway signs.
B. CK: Board budget – receives $2500 per year. Due to good budgeting, and help from the
Beautification Board, we have $1410 remaining. Use it or lose it.
1. Slides to be digitized – about 300. $1/slide by F11. MH: Also contact the Pioneer
Museum to see if they have some to add. John Russell is working on digitizing their
images, but won’t be making them available on the
website; but they’d be happy to have digitizations of
ours, and to lend us some for digitizing. CK says
they do need our money. They don’t traffic in high
resolution images.
149
BHPAB 2011 May 26 - Page 4 of 4
Security Bank model.
2. Historic plaques fees from SHPO. Fee is about $65/plaque. MH – let’s check with
the SHPO; they typically don’t accept payment for the sign until sign has been
delivered.
a) LG recommended that it be only for public entities, so there isn’t an unfair
advantage for one private owner over another. Pioneer Museum, the Emerson,
???? or Main Street as a whole. Willson, Hawthorne, Longfellow, Irving
Schools. Courthouse.
b) RO: Could we make one for the horse? Would have to nominate it – document it
and amend it to the HD???
3. RO: Are there historic structures that need any sandbags? The Eagles?
4. JB: Are there walking tour pamphlets available? An older one that hasn’t been
printed for ages – not sure where it’s at. There is currently one at the Downtown
Business Association. CK has copies of all of them. MH: There’s also an old 1970’s
South Willson brochure. Summer is a good time to distribute them.
5. RO: Any way to market this money for potential action later – can we earmark this for
a revolving fund for urgent historic preservation needs?
6. JB: Could some of the money be used for the perfect survey form for the survey form
for the volunteers to use. MH: there are reconnaissance level forms, and intensive
level forms. We’re just doing reconnaissance level. DK: it would be helpful to do
several different architectural styles. Examples of different styles. MH doesn’t think
we should hire someone for that. Sounds like a good education session – find
representative examples of each style.
7. CK: She will provide an update to the Board on these potential expenditures later.
C. Next year’s budget: Can we include a Podcast for our brochures in next year’s budget?
CK will look at.
D. CK recommended an idea of Spokane newspaper then-now photos to Amanda Rickert
at the Bozeman Chronicle, who responded positively to CK’s request to incorporate this
idea into the Chronicle.
E. Grant applications: submitting one June 1 for MT preservation funds for the Northern
Pacific Depot.
F. No news on East Willson School. Will begin working on the feasibility study later this
summer.
G. MH: Would still like to get a tour of the East Willson School.
H. MH: Let’s tour the Neutra House.
I. LG: The modernism survey, funded by SHPO, has been completed. There was a limited
printing run (due to expense), so copies were only provided to owners of properties
included in the survey. An electronic version will be available on the MT SHPO website
in the future.
J. Grants: Can’t go for the Ordin grant because it’s for communities less than 30,000.
XI. Motion to adjourn at 8 pm– by RO, seconded by JB.
END OF MINUTES
Secretary: Lesley M. Gilmore
150
community
planning
zoning subdivision
review
annexation historic
preservation
neighborhood
planning
urban
design
GIS
CITY OF BOZEMAN
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Alfred M. Stiff Professional Building
20 East Olive Street
P.O. Box 1230
Bozeman, Montana 59771-1230
phone 406-582-2260
fax 406-582-2263
planning@bozeman.net
www.bozeman.net
MEMORANDUM
TO: SANDY DODGE
FROM: CHRIS SAUNDERS
RE: POSSIBLE CHANGES TO CHAPTER 18.50, PARKS AND OPEN SPACES
DATE: MARCH 7, 2011
The City Commission has requested the Planning Department to consider some possible changes to park
dedication requirements. This is being generated by the commentary on park fees on page 39 of the
Downtown Plan, see copy of text below.
“PARK FEE
It is very unusual for development within any downtown to be charged a fee for parks. This is for
several reasons. First, parkland is most usually needed on the outer edge of a community where
families with children are settling. Downtowns do not typically attract that demographic and thus
if development is charged such a fee, in a sense it is subsidizing edge development. This is
contrary to planning principles involving infill. Second, downtowns usually already have, or are
close to, existing parks with sufficient capacity for more use; rarely are entirely new parks
needed. Finally, the people who live in, work in, and visit downtowns use public space
differently. They tend to use the sidewalks, cafes and coffeehouses for relaxing, passive
recreation and socializing. In some ways parks are superfluous.
We recommend this fee be specifically dedicated to the downtown district and used as a funding
source for the “green” strategies outlined in this plan; improving sidewalks, greening streets and
alleys, creating small parks along Bozeman Creek, and creating or improving other public spaces
and facilities within the downtown.”
There are also other elements of the Downtown plan that discuss development of green spaces which
may include parks. The Commission has also adopted the following goals to be pursued in 2010-2011.
Items 3 and 5 are also seen as being affected by park dedication requirements.
“1) Enhance Downtown Development Opportunities
1. Utilize the federal HUD grant for the blast site (Finance, CM)
2. Conduct a "Full cost & benefit study: social, economic & traffic considerations for one-way
conversion to 2-way, shared lanes, streetscape improvements and truck route modifications"
as recommended by the Downtown Plan. (Engineers)
3. Increase density in the B-3 district. Bozeman Community Plan (BCP) Implementation Policy
8, 9, 16, 21a, 22, 27, 81. (Planning - Krueger)
4. Implement the remaining parking recommendations identified in the downtown plan and review
and update for the Downtown Parking SID/Cash-in-lieu program. BCP Implementation policies
2, 3, 9, 10, 11. (Planning - Bristor, Parking)
151
Page 2
5. Amend UDO to incentivize downtown redevelopment and the construction of multi-story
buildings (Planning - Riley)”
In considering options to address this direction Staff has identified several possibilities. These are
summarized below and the attached text has an initial cut at the actual language. Please note that the
draft text reflects ALL of the options and therefore, some will be removed before adoption.
Options:
A. Leave as is.
B. No requirement for park dedication within the B-3 zoning district no matter how many units are
proposed.
C. Exempt the first five new dwellings in a project from dedication requirements (somewhat mirrors the
exemption for minor subdivisions).
D. Make specific that there is no land required, only cash-in-lieu. Delegate approval authority for
review and acceptance of cash-in-lieu to the Planning Director. This shortens the review process and
eliminates unnecessary effort.
E. Follow the normal cash-in-lieu procedures but adopt a fixed percentage reduction across the board.
F. The City Commission could pre-designate all cash-in-lieu received to certain projects like improving
Bozeman Creek. This would likely not be code but a separate resolution or other action and is not
shown in the attached text.
Notes: Discussed options with RPAB subdivision review committee on March 11, 2011. Four members
present. Committee preference is for combination of options D and F to both focus benefits and simplify
the review process for zoning projects.
152
Page 1 of 16
ORDINANCE NO. 1804
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN,
MONTANA, PROVIDING THAT THE BOZEMAN MUNICIPAL CODE BE
AMENDED BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER TO BE NUMBERED CHAPTER 2.65,
SETTING FORTH THE DUTIES AND POWERS OF THE ZONING COMMISSION,
AND REVISING CHAPTER 18.28, SECTION 18.42.170, SECTION 18.50.030
SECTION 18.52.020, SECTION 18.52.060, SECTION 18.52.130, SECTION 18.64.010,
SECTION 18.64.160, ADDING A NEW SECTION 18.80.1945, AND TO AMEND
SECTION 18.80.3210.
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman has adopted a Unified Development Ordinance
which establishes common standards for zoning 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, the Bozeman Zoning Commission held a public hearing on June 7, 2011
to receive and review all written and oral testimony on the request for a Unified Development
Ordinance text amendment; and
WHEREAS, no members of the public offered comments on the proposed
amendments; and
WHEREAS, as shown in Zoning Commission Resolution Z-11021, the Bozeman
Zoning Commission recommended to the Bozeman City Commission that the proposed Unified
Development Ordinance text amendments be approved; and
WHEREAS, after proper notice, the City Commission held a public hearing on June
27, 2011, to receive and review all written and oral testimony on the request for a text
amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance; and
153
Page 2 of 16
WHEREAS, the City Commission 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 that the amendments
would yield a superior outcome for the community than the text as presently exists; and
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, that:
Section 1
That Title 2, Administration, of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by adding a new
chapter to be numbered Chapter 2.65 to read as follows:
2.65 CITY ZONING COMMISSION
2.65.010 ESTABLISHED--POWERS AND DUTIES.
Pursuant to and under the provisions of Title 76, Montana Code Annotated, the city commission
of the city does create and establish a city MUNICIPAL zoning commission to be known as the
"Bozeman zoning commission" as provided in the title, and does by this chapter adopt all of the
sections of the laws of Montana previously mentioned that specifically pertain to a city
MUNICIPAL zoning commission, granting and delegating to the Bozeman zoning commission
all of the rights, privileges, powers, duties and responsibilities thereto appertaining.
2.65.020 JURISDICTION.
The Bozeman zoning commission shall have such jurisdiction as provided by state law.
2.65.030 COMPOSITION.
The Bozeman zoning commission shall consist of five members, appointed to two year terms to
expire as follows:
A. Two members appointed by the City Commission . The appointments shall be for two-
year terms, with those terms to expire on February 28 of even-numbered years ;
B. Three members appointed by the City Commission . The appointments shall be for two-
year terms, with those terms to expire on February 28 of odd-numbered years;
C. Alternates. The City Commission may designate up to two members of the City Planning
Board who, only in the event that the zoning commission does not have an available
quorum, may act as an alternate member to enable the zoning commission to conduct
business.
154
Page 3 of 16
D. The City Clerk shall certify the members appointed by the City Commission. The
certificates shall be sent to and become a part of the records of the Bozeman zoning
commission.
Section 2
Section 18.28.010.A of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended so that such section shall read
as follows:
18.28.010 INTENT AND PURPOSE
A. All new construction, alterations to existing structures, movement of structures into or out
of the neighborhood conservation overlay district, hereinafter referred to as the
conservation district, or demolition of structures by any means or process will be subject
to design review unless specifically exempted. The recommendations of the Design
Review Board or Administrative Design Review staff shall be given careful consideration
in the final action of the Planning Director or City Commission review authority.
Section 3
Section 18.28.040 of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended so that such section shall read as
follows:
18.28.040 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
A certificate of appropriateness, received from either the Planning Director or the City
Commission after recommendation by the Administrative Design Review staff or Design Review
Board, shall be required before any and all alteration(s) other than those specifically exempted in
subparagraph A or repair as defined in Chapter 18.80, are undertaken upon any structure in the
conservation district. For alterations not requiring City Commission approval, compliance with
the Planning Director’s decisions will be mandatory subject to appeal to the City Commission as
set forth in Chapter 18.66, BMC. The review authority for certificates of appropriateness is
established in Chapter 18.64, BMC. Compliance with the terms of the final decision is required.
The Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory Form shall be reviewed and, if necessary,
updated by the historic preservation staff to reflect current conditions on the site, prior to the
review of the proposal. Application procedures are as follows:
A. No building, demolition, conditional use, sign or moving permit shall be issued within the
conservation district until a certificate of appropriateness has been issued by the
appropriate review authority, and until final action on the proposal has been taken.
1. Limited Exceptions. The following construction located within the Neighborhood
Conservation Overlay District, within an established historic district, or at a site
which is Individually Listed on the National Register of Historic Preservation,
does not require a certificate of appropriateness if the project satisfies the
following standards:
a. Fences meeting all other provisions of this title (e.g. height limitations,
street vision triangle, finished side out, etc. per 18.42.130, BMC) which
are built of wood, wrought-iron, or any other non-synthetic material and
155
Page 4 of 16
whose construction allows “transparency” as set forth in Chapter 3,
Section F of the design guidelines referenced in paragraph 18.28.050.D,
BMC. CHAIN LINK FENCING IS NOT INCLUDED IN THIS
EXCEPTION.
b. Basement egress windows whose window material and configuration is
present elsewhere in the structure, and whose window wells are not on the
front or corner-side yard elevation of the structure, and which do not
establish or provide egress from an illegal dwelling unit.
c. Accessory structures under 120 square feet AS MEASURED FROM THE
OUTER EDGE OF THE EXTERIOR WALLS, which meet the setback
requirements, ARE NOT MORE THAN 14 FEET TO THEIR HIGHEST
POINT and which do not require a building permit.
d. Alterations in roofing material, if installing wood shingle, slate, tile, or
asphalt shingle material, and no changes are made to the roof shape, pitch
or slope.
B. Application, review and public notice procedures for proposals located within the
conservation district are set forth in Chapter 18.34, BMC, Review Procedures for Site
Development, Chapter 18.62, BMC, Development Review Committee, Design Review
Board, Administrative Design Review and Wetlands Review Board and Chapter 18.76,
BMC, Noticing. If the demolition or movement of structures or sites subject to the
conservation district requirements is proposed, the procedures in §18.28.080, BMC shall
apply.
C. A denial of a certificate of appropriateness shall be accompanied by a written statement
of reasons for the denial.
D. The architectural designs of individual workforce housing units used to satisfy the
requirements of Section 17.02.030, BMC and meeting the requirements of Section
17.02.060.A.13, BMC are exempt from the review requirements of this chapter. This
exemption does not extend to removal or alterations of existing structures.
Section 4
Section 18.28.070 of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended so that such section shall read as
follows:
18.28.070 DEVIATIONS FROM UNDERLYING ZONING REQUIREMENTS
Because the development of much of historic Bozeman preceded zoning, subdivision and
construction regulations, many buildings within the conservation district do not conform to
contemporary zoning standards. In order to encourage restoration and rehabilitation activity that
would contribute to the overall historic character of the community, deviations from underlying
zoning requirements may be granted as described in Chapter 18.66, BMC.by the City
Commission after considering the recommendations of the Design Review Board or
Administrative Design Review staff. The criteria for granting deviations from the underlying
zoning requirements are:
156
Page 5 of 16
A. Modifications shall be more historically appropriate for the building and site in question
and the adjacent properties, as determined by the standards in §18.28.050 of this chapter,
than would be achieved under a literal enforcement of this title;
B. Modifications will have minimal adverse effect on abutting properties or the permitted
uses thereof; and
C. Modifications shall assure the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare.
Approvals may be conditioned to assure such protection, and such conditions may
include a time period within which alterations will be completed; landscaping and
maintenance thereof; architectural, site plan and landscape design modifications; or any
other conditions in conformity with the intent and purpose set forth in this chapter.
Section 5
Section 18.28.090 of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended so that such section shall read as
follows:
18.28.090 APPEALS
Aggrieved persons, as defined in Chapter 18.80, BMC, may appeal the a final decision of the
review authority of the Planning Director or City Commission pursuant to the provisions of
Chapter 18.66, BMC. In such event, the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness shall be
stayed until the appeal process has been satisfied.
Section 6
Section 18.42.170 of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended so that such section shall read as
follows:
18.42.170 TRASH AND GARBAGE ENCLOSURES
A permanent enclosure for temporary storage of garbage, refuse and other waste materials shall
be provided for every use, other than single-household dwellings, duplexes, individually owned
townhouse or condominium units, in every zoning district, except where a property is entirely
surrounded by screen walls or buildings. Trash enclosures shall be constructed so that contents
are not visible from a height of 5 feet above grade from any abutting street or property. Trash
enclosures shall comply with the following regulations:
A. Location. Trash enclosures, surrounding standard steel bins (dumpsters), shall be located
on the site for convenient pickup service, and the location shall be shown on required site
plans. Trash enclosures shall not be located in required front yards, and shall be situated
so that containers can be pulled straight out of the enclosure or so the sanitation SOLID
WASTE truck can back straight into it. The location of all trash enclosures shall be
subject to review and approval by the City SOLID WASTE DIVISION Sanitation
Department.
B. Construction. Trash enclosures shall be constructed of solid or ornamental pierced
masonry walls or other appropriate materials, with a solid concrete floor sloped for
drainage and maintenance of sanitary conditions. Enclosures shall be architecturally
compatible with the principle structure. Enclosures shall be of sufficient height to conceal
contents, including containers, but in no case shall be less than 4 feet in height above
grade.
157
Page 6 of 16
C. Exception. A garbage enclosure is not required for dumpsters accessed via an alley.
D. Construction Enclosure. For applications other than those classified as Sketch Plan
reviews per Section 18.34.050, BMC, the applicant shall designate a temporary enclosed
refuse storage area on the site plan, including a typical detail with dimensions and type of
materials, for the storage and collection of building material debris during the
construction phase of the project, and that said debris area is shown accordingly on the
final site plan.
Section 7
Section 18.50.030 of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended so that such section shall read as
follows:
18.50.030 CASH DONATION IN-LIEU OF LAND DEDICATION
A. The City Commission may determine whether the park dedication must be a land
dedication, cash donation in-lieu of land dedication or a combination of both. When
making this determination, the City Commission shall consider the following:
1. The desirability and suitability of land for parks and playgrounds based on size,
topography, shape, location or other circumstances; and
2. The expressed preference of the developer.
3. Location of the site within the B-3 zoning district. The City Commission has
determined that cash-in-lieu of land dedication is the preferred DEFAULT
method to satisfy the requirements of 18.50.020.A within the B-3 zoning district.
The approval authority of a development within the B-3 zoning district is as
governed by Section 18.64.010 and use of the in-lieu provisions of this chapter do
not require review of the project by the City Commission.
B. When a combination of land dedication and cash donation in-lieu of land dedication is
required, the cash donation may not exceed the proportional amount not covered by the
land dedication.
C. Cash donation in-lieu of land dedication shall be equal to the fair market value of the
amount of land that would have been dedicated. For the purpose of these regulations, the
fair market value is the value of the unsubdivided, unimproved land after it has been
annexed and given an urban zoning designation. The City intends to obtain the highest
value for cash-in-lieu of parkland that is allowable under Montana law.
1. It shall be the responsibility of the developer to provide an appraisal of the fair
market value by a certified real estate appraiser of their choosing. The appraisal
fee shall be the responsibility of the developer.
158
Page 7 of 16
2. When a land value must be established for cash-in-lieu of land dedication to
satisfy the requirements of §18.50.020, BMC, and the value of the land in an
unsubdivided, unimproved, but annexed and zoned condition can not reasonably
be determined, the developer may provide an appraisal of residentially zoned
property with a zoning designation that allows the density of dwellings proposed
for development.
3. The appraisal provided for the purpose of §18.50.030, BMC shall be conducted
not sooner than 90 days prior to the submittal of an application for final plat or
final site plan approval.
D. Where a cash donation has been accepted in-lieu of land dedication, the amount of cash
donation shall be stated on the final plat or plan as appropriate.
E. Where a cash donation has been accepted in-lieu of land dedication, the City Commission
shall record in the meeting minutes or other written decision why the dedication of land
for parks and playgrounds was undesirable.
F. Use of Cash Donations.
1. The City Commission shall use a cash donation for development or acquisition of
parks to serve the development.
2. The City Commission may use the cash donation to acquire or develop parks or
recreational areas within its jurisdiction or for the purchase of public open space
or conservation easements, only if:
a. The park, recreational area, open space or conservation easement is within
a reasonably close proximity to the proposed development; and
b. The City Commission has formally adopted a Citywide park plan that
establishes the needs and procedures for use of the cash donation.
Section 8
Section 18.52.020 of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended so that such section shall read as
follows:
18.52.020 SIGN PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
If a sign requiring a permit under the provision of this chapter is to be placed, constructed,
erected or modified on a zone lot, the owner of the lot shall secure a sign and building permit
prior to the construction, placement, erection or modification of such a sign. Furthermore, the
property owner shall maintain in force, at all times, a permit for such sign. No permit of any kind
shall be issued for an existing sign or proposed sign unless such sign is consistent with the
requirements of this chapter. Murals as defined in Section18.80.1945, BMC are not subject to
this chapter but may be subject to the provisions of Chapters 18.28 and 18.30, BMC.
159
Page 8 of 16
Section 9
Section 18.52.050.B of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended so that such section shall read
as follows:
B. Commercial and Manufacturing Zones (R-O, B-1, B-2, B-3, UMU, M-1, M-2, BP, PLI,
HMU, REMU [mixed use, nonresidential]).
1. Window signs provided that such signs do not occupy more than 25 percent of the
area of the window in which it is displayed. If it exceeds 25 percent of the area of
the window, it will be classified as a wall sign. For the purposes of this section, a
window is a transparent glass opening in a wall separated from other glass
openings by mullions or other dividers of four inches or less in width.
2. Signs within a structure or building or other enclosed area of property when such
signs are not legible when viewed from outside the structure or property.
3. Temporary non-illuminated signs, e.g. real estate sale, for rent or lease, political
campaign, noncommercial speech signs shall not exceed 32 square feet in size,
shall be no more than 5 feet high and shall be at least 5 feet from the property
line. Only one sign of each subject per street frontage per lot is allowed.
4. A temporary, non-illuminated sign identifying the businesses working at a
construction site may be posted. The signs for multiple businesses shall be
aggregated among all those working on the site and in total shall not exceed 32
square feet in size, shall be no more than 5 feet high and shall be at least 5 feet
from the property line. All parties to the development, including but not limited
to, banks, architects, contractors, developers, future occupants of the lot, real
estate agent, landscape company shall be on a single sign per street frontage per
lot. Such signs shall not be considered off-premise advertising so long as the
identified business is actively engaged on the site.
5. Not more than four on-premises directional signs not exceeding 4 square feet in
area and 5 feet in height which shall not contain any commercial messages.
Section 10
Section 18.52.060.A&B of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended so that such sections shall
read 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, REMU [mixed use, nonresidential]). A lot in a B-2 district is permitted total
signage not to exceed 400 square feet. The maximum allowable total signage in the other
districts listed herein shall not exceed 250 square feet per lot. A comprehensive sign plan
160
Page 9 of 16
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 2 square feet
for the first 25 linear feet of building frontage and 1.5 square feet per linear foot
of building frontage thereafter, minus any area devoted to freestanding or
projecting signs. When a building is located on its lot such that there is no parking
between the building facade with the primary entrance and the street right of way
line and there is parking located to the side of the building, then 35 percent of the
side length of the building may be used to calculate building frontage. 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. The additional sign area shall be applied to
the side of the building from which the 35 percent calculation was made.
Regardless of the allowance for additional area the maximum area shall not
exceed the amount allowed for the district.
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.
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 80 square feet per building in a B-1 district or non-
residentially planned R-O district and 32 square feet in a residentially planned R-O
district. The maximum sign area per user on a zoned lot shall not exceed 80 square feet.
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 1.5 square feet for the first 25 linear feet of building frontage and 1
square foot per linear foot of building frontage thereafter, 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
161
Page 10 of 16
frontage minus any area devoted to freestanding and/or projecting signs. When a
building is located on its lot such that there is no parking between the building
facade with the primary entrance and the street right of way line and there is
parking located to the side of the building then 35 percent of the side length of the
building may be used to calculate building frontage. 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. The additional sign area shall be applied to the side of the
building from which the 35 percent calculation was made. Regardless of the
allowance for additional area the maximum area shall not exceed the amount
allowed for the district.
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.
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.
Section 11
Section 18.52.080 of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended and renumbered so that such
section shall read as follows:
18.52.080 MULTITENANT COMPLEXES WITH LESS THAN 100,000 SQUARE
FEET OF GROUND FLOOR AREA
The guidelines for the underlying zoning districts apply unless otherwise addressed below:
A. The maximum permitted wall sign area allowed for each tenant space shall be the
percentage of the total floor area on the zoned lot that the tenant occupies multiplied by
the wall area allowed by §18.52.060.A.2 or §18.52.060.B.2, BMC unless otherwise
allocated in an approved comprehensive sign plan per Section 18.52.070. If the lot has
more than one building frontage, the individual tenant space may derive sign area only
from the frontage(s) which the space faces. Lots under this section shall be allowed a low
profile sign that identifies the complex, which otherwise conforms to this chapter, in
addition to the sign area already permitted under §18.52.060.A.2or §18.52.060.B.2,
BMC.
Section 12
162
Page 11 of 16
Section 18.52.130 of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended and renumbered so that such
section shall read as follows:
18.52.130045 REQUIRED ADDRESS SIGN
Street numbers shall be required for all residential, commercial, industrial, and civic uses in all
zones., consistent with the requirements of the Fire Department. All freestanding signs shall
display the address of the lot in 6-inch numbers. All building numbering shall conform to
Chapter 12.08, Building Numbers, BMC.
Section 13
Section 18.64.160 of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended so that such section shall read as
follows:
18.64.160 VIOLATION - PENALTY - ASSISTING OR ABETTING - ADDITIONAL
REMEDIES
The effective enforcement of adopted standards is necessary to accomplish their intended
purpose. The City has a variety of options for the enforcement of this title. The Planning Director
shall select the option which in their opinion is most suitable to the circumstance and violation.
More than one enforcement option may be used to attain compliance with the standards of this
title when deemed appropriate.
A. Violation of the provisions of this title or failure to comply with any of its requirements
including violations of conditions and safeguards established in connection with the grant
of variances or conditional uses or any of the required conditions imposed by the
Planning Director and/or City Commission shall constitute a misdemeanor. Any person
who violates this title or fails to comply with any of its requirements shall upon
conviction thereof be fined or imprisoned or both, either as set forth in state law
regarding subdivision and zoning, or in accordance with Section 1.16.010, BMC, and in
addition shall pay all costs and expenses involved in the case except as stated in
subsection D of this section.
1. Each day such violation continues shall be considered a separate offense and
punishable as such.
2. For violations relating to plats each sale, lease or transfer of each separate parcel
of land in violation of any provision of these regulations or the Montanan
Subdivision and Platting Act shall be deemed a separate and distinct offense.
B. The code compliance officer is authorized to issue a notice to appear under the provisions
of §46-6-310, MCA to any violator of this title.
C. The owner or tenant of any building, structure, premises or part thereof, and any
architect, builder, contractor, agent or other person who commits, participates in, assists
or maintains such violation may each be found guilty of a separate offense and suffer the
penalties herein provided.
D. If transfers not in accordance with these regulations or the Montana Subdivision and
Platting Act are made, the City Attorney shall commence action to enjoin further sales or
163
Page 12 of 16
transfers and compel compliance with all provisions of these regulations. The cost of the
action must be imposed against the party not prevailing.
E. When a violation has not been corrected by the property owner after written notice from
the City, the enforcement officer or Planning Director may seek approval for filing at the
Gallatin County Clerk and Recorder’s Office a Notice of Violation or Noncompliance.
Such notice shall serve to advise potential purchasers of existing violations of this title or
of on-going enforcement actions regarding a property. Such notice shall clearly state that
the parcel or development on the parcel is in violation of this title and that correction of
the violation must be made prior to the City approving additional development or
redevelopment of the site. The notice shall also describe the nature of the violation and
applicable citations to the relevant sections of this title.
1. When such a notice is to be filed the enforcement officer shall either:
a. Through the office of the City Attorney bring an action for civil and/or
injunctive relief that requests a court order to record a Notice of Violation
or Noncompliance; or
b. Schedule a public meeting to be held before the City Commission with the
intention of receiving an order from the City Commission confirming the
validity of the violation and the need for correction, and authorizing the
recording of the Notice of Violation or Noncompliance. Notice of such a
hearing shall be provided as required by Chapter 18.76, BMC.
2. When a violation has been corrected for which a Notice of Violation or
Noncompliance was filed, the City shall record a release of noncompliance
indicating that the prior violation has been corrected. The property owner is
responsible for notifying the Planning Department in writing of the correction of
the violation or noncompliance. Upon receipt of such notification by the property
owner, the enforcement officer shall conduct an inspection to verify correction
prior to the recording of the release.
F. The City may maintain an action or proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction to
compel compliance with, or to restrain by injunction the violation of, any provision of
this title.
G. Nothing herein contained shall prevent the City from taking such other lawful action as is
necessary to prevent or remedy any violation.
H. Violation of this Title is a municipal infraction and may be punishable by a civil penalty
as provided in Section 1.24.040 BMC, in addition to other remedies of Section 18.64.160
except that the Court shall impose the following minimum civil penalties.
1. Each day such violation continues shall be considered a separate offense and
punishable as such. The minimum civil penalty for violation of this title by the
same person for the same violation within a 12 month period shall be:
a. First citation $100.00
b. Second citation $150.00
c. Third and subsequent citations $200.00
164
Page 13 of 16
d. The determining factor with respect to the civil penalty is the receipt of
service of the citation and not the judgment.
I. Upon resolution of an identified instance of non-compliance with the standards of this
title the City may record a document with the Gallatin County Clerk and Recorder to give
notice of the resolution of the non-compliance.
Section 14
Section 18.66.030.C of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended so that such section shall read
as follows:
C. Filing of Notice of Appeal. An appeal shall be taken by filing with the Clerk of the
Commission a notice of intent to appeal by 5:00 pm on the fourth business 10th working
day following the final decision of the Planning Director, and a documented appeal and
appeal fee. within seven business days of the final decision of the Planning Director.
Such notice of intent to appeal shall include the following:
1. The action of the Planning Director which is the subject of the appeal; and
2. The date of such action.
Section 15
Section 18.66.040.A of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended so that such section shall read
as follows:
A. A request for appeal of an interpretation of this title, including classifications of use per
Chapter 18.14, BMC, shall be made by filing an application, with appropriate fees, with
the Clerk of the Commission within 30 calendar 20 working days of the interpretation
decision. After receiving a completed application the Clerk of the Commission shall
schedule a hearing at a regular Commission meeting. In all cases, the complete
application shall include, and shall not be deemed filed until, all of the materials required
by §18.78.150, BMC are submitted.
Section 16
That Section 18.70.030 of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended to read as follows:
18.70.030 PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS
A. The City Commission and Zoning Commission shall hold public hearings on the matters
referred to in such application at which parties of interest and citizens shall have an
opportunity to be heard.
B. The Planning Director shall give public notice as required by Chapter 18.76, BMC. The
Planning Director shall provide to the City Commission and Zoning Commission a report
of the staff’s analysis of the application.
C. After such hearing or hearings, the Zoning Commission will make reports and
recommendations on the application to the City Commission.
165
Page 14 of 16
D. After the Zoning Commission has forwarded a recommendation on the amendment to the
zoning district map, a public hearing shall be held by the City Commission for the
purpose of acting upon the proposed amendment after public notice.
1. In the case of protest against such changes, signed by the owners of 25 percent or
more of either the area of the lots included in any proposed change or those lots or
condominium units 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. When considering
protests from owners of condominiums the provisions of 76-2-305(3), MCA
apply. The provisions of subsection 18.70.030.D include the ability for an
applicant to protest a possible decision to adopt a zoning less than originally
requested when the applicant meets the same criteria as other affected
landowners.
2. If the City Commission intends to adopt a zoning designation different than that
applied for, the hearing will be continued for a minimum of one week to enable
the applicant to consider their options and whether to protest the possible action.
In the case of protest against a change to the zoning map by the applicant the
same favorable vote of two-thirds of the present and voting members of the City
Commission is required as for any other protested zoning action.
Section 17
That title 18, Unified Development Ordinance, of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by
adding a new section to be numbered 18.80.1945 to read as follows:
18.80.1945 MURAL
A visual representation using texture, colors, forms, or symbols, which does not meet the
definition of a sign, placed on a solid, non-transparent vertical surface such as a wall of a
building.
Section 18
That title 18, Unified Development Ordinance, of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by
changing section 18.80.3210 to read as follows:
18.80.3210 WINDOW SIGN
Any sign painted, attached, glued or otherwise affixed to a window or suspended within 18
inches behind a window for the purpose of being visible from the exterior of the building.
Section 19
Repealer
All provisions of the ordinances of the City of Bozeman in conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance are, and the same are hereby, repealed and all other provisions of the ordinances of the
166
Page 15 of 16
City of Bozeman not in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance shall remain in full force
and effect.
Section 20
Savings Provision
This ordinance does not affect the rights and duties that matured, penalties that were incurred or
proceedings that were begun before the effective date of this ordinance. All other provision of
the Bozeman Municipal Code not amended by this Ordinance shall remain in full force and
effect.
Section 21
Severability
That should any sentence, paragraph, subdivision, clause, phrase or section of this ordinance be
adjudged or held to be unconstitutional, illegal, or invalid, the same shall not affect the validity
of this ordinance as a whole, or any part or provision thereof, other than the part so decided to be
invalid, illegal or unconstitutional, and shall not affect the validity of the Bozeman Municipal
Code as a whole.
Section 22
Codification
The provisions of Section 1 shall be codified as appropriate in Title 2, Administration, and the
provisions of Sections 2-17 shall be codified as appropriate in Title 18, Unified Development
Ordinance, of the Bozeman Municipal Code. All references within the Bozeman Municipal Code
shall be revised to reflect the changes in this ordinance.
Section 23
Effective Date
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after final adoption.
PROVISIONALLY PASSED by the City Commission of the City of Bozeman, Montana,
on first reading at a regular session held on the _______ day of _______, 2011.
____________________________________
JEFFREY K. KRAUSS
Mayor
167
Page 16 of 16
ATTEST:
_________________________________
STACY ULMEN, CMC
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________
GREG SULLIVAN
City Attorney
FINALLY PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the City Commission of the City
of Bozeman, Montana on second reading at a regular session thereof held on the ____ day
of ________________, 2011. The effective date of this ordinance is __________, __, 2011.
____________________________________
JEFFREY K. KRAUSS
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
STACY ULMEN, CMC
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________
GREG SULLIVAN
City Attorney
168