HomeMy WebLinkAboutProvisional Adoption Ordinance 1875, amending BMC 38.28.060 & 38.28.200, sign standards
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Chris Saunders, Policy and Planning Manager
Wendy Thomas, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Provisional adoption of Ordinance 1875, A text amendment to Sections 38.28.060 and 38.28.200, BMC, to revise formatting for non-residential sign standards, to revise calculations for multiple frontage
buildings, and to revise the non-conforming sign provisions. File
number Z13246.
MEETING DATE: December 16, 2013
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action
RECOMMENDATION: Provisional adoption of Ordinance 1875
RECOMMENDED MOTION: “Having reviewed the application materials, considered
public comment, and considered all of the information presented, I hereby adopt the
findings presented in the staff report for application Z-13246 and move to provisionally adopt Ordinance 1875.”
Staff report page references: findings criteria, page 2; Background and Project Description, page
7
BACKGROUND: The North 7th Urban Renewal Board submitted a letter to the City
Commission on October 7, 2013 requesting three changes to the City’s sign regulations. The City Commission directed staff to prepare and amendment for consideration by the public. Staff has prepared a group of amendments which address the requested issues and which provide other
text improvements in response to questions and concerns which have been identified in
commercial signage. The proposed amendments address two of the specific requested changes.
This proposed ordinance will: 1) Reorganize Section 38.28.060.A to consolidate multiple paragraphs of text into a table for
easier comparison of standards between non-residential districts and provide cross references;
2) Amend 38.28.060.A to modify how commercial sign area is calculated by:
a) Allow calculation of sign area based on building frontage as defined in Section 38.42.430 without regard to determination of a primary or secondary frontage. This will have the effect of allowing an increased amount of sign area which will still be limited by
the maximum amount allowed in each district.
b) Replacing a calculation of a percentage of building frontage for placement of parking
as it relates to sign area and substitute a direct ratio of additional sign area in the initial sign calculation.
301
c) Make provision for more than one projecting sign per tenant.
d) Revise sign calculations for residential-office district residential uses to allow a larger
amount of sign area.
3) Renumber 38.28.060 to provide additional clarity of topic and organization. 4) Clarify application of sign permitting processes to residential zones.
5) Revise the provisions for non-conforming signs, Section 38.28.200, to:
a) Clarify the intent of the nonconforming sign provisions.
b) Renumber the section’s paragraphs to improve clarify of topic and organization.
c) Clarify when non-conforming signs must become conforming in relationship to development review of the site where the sign is located. A site being reviewed under the
provisions for Special Temporary Use Permit, Sketch Plan, or Certificate of
Appropriateness, Amendments to Plans, or Change in Use/Further Development do not
require non-conforming signs to be removed but any new signs must be compliant to
municipal code. d) Create specific exceptions from the requirement to make a sign conforming when
changes to the sign are required due to certain governmental actions.
Some minor wording changes were made to the text of the draft ordinance after consultation with
the City Attorney. The substance of the proposed amendments remains the same as that reviewed by the Zoning Commission.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: The North 7th Urban Renewal Board submitted a letter to the City
Commission on October 7, 2013 requesting three changes to the City’s sign regulations. The City
Commission directed staff to prepare and amendment for consideration by the public. The draft ordinance directly addresses two of the three requested subjects; non-conforming signs and
changes to signs which result from a governmental agency working within or expanding a public
right of way.
There was a third request for a definition of “change in copy” and to not require signs to come
into compliance with a change in copy. The method for understanding definitions within the Unified Development Code is established in the following section:
Section Sec. 38.42.010. Definition of terms and interpretation of language.
“A. Terms specifically defined in regulations issued by the department of justice and the
department of transportation to implement the Americans with Disabilities Act or in
referenced standards shall have those meanings. Otherwise, all words in this chapter shall be first defined as provided in this article and, if not defined herein, shall be defined as in
the latest edition of "The Illustrated Book of Development Definitions" by Harvey S.
Moskowitz and Carl G. Lindbloom, and if not defined in "The Illustrated Book of
Development Definitions," shall have their customary dictionary definitions as defined in
collegiate dictionaries in the sense that the context implies.”
Staff has researched this issue. ‘Copy’ is not presently defined in the Unified Development Code.
Looking into several resources it appears that the common dictionary definition of the term
‘copy’ is very similar to the meaning used by the sign industry. See examples below for
definitions and sources. Therefore staff does not believe there is a material benefit to be
obtained from adding a new definition to the municipal code.
“Copy: The words and/or message displayed on a sign.”
A Legal and Technical Exploration of On-Premise Sign Regulation: An Evidence Based-
Model Sign Code
“Copy: The text of a news story, advertisement, television commercial or the like.”
302
Random House Webster’s College Dictionary
“Sign Copy: Any combination of letters or numbers which is intended to inform, direct or
otherwise transmit information.”, or
“Sign Copy: Any graphic, word numeral, symbol, insignia, text, sample, mode, device or combination thereof which is primarily intended to advertise, identify, or notify.”
A Planners Dictionary, Planning Advisory Services Report
If the Commission ultimately decides it is appropriate to have a specific definition then staff
suggests adding the definition as a new Section 38.42.765 to read “Copy: The words and/or
message displayed on a sign.” A change in copy most frequently occurs when a new business seeks a new sign or there is a
material change to an existing business’s sign such as a change in logo or franchise identity.
These are material changes to a sign and have been one of the most frequent ways of bringing
signs into compliance. A repair which keeps the same design of the sign face is not considered change in copy. Staff does not believe it appropriate to allow non-conforming signs to continue
after a change in copy as these are materially different signs and other businesses seeking new
signs are required to comply with the existing sign code.
An administrative policy addressing changes in copy is attached to help explain the issue. If the Commission wishes to accept the request from the N 7th Board relating to change in copy the
applicable text in subsection 38.28.200.C.2 can be stricken. This would have the effect of
modifying this standard throughout the community.
ALTERNATIVES:
1) Approve the text amendment as recommended by staff and the Zoning Commission.
2) Approve the text amendment with revisions.
3) Decline to amend the text.
4) Continue the amendment with direction to Staff to consider additional changes to the text
within the scope of the advertised amendments.
FISCAL EFFECTS: None identified.
Attachments: Ordinance 1875, Staff Report, Administrative Policies, List of non-conforming signs, Letter
from N. 7th Board, December 3, 2013 Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes.
Report compiled on: December 5, 2013
303
- 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. 1875
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA,
WHEREAS, The City of Bozeman (the “City”) is authorized by the City Charter and Montana law to
adopt land development and use standards to protect public health, safety and welfare and otherwise execute the purposes of Section 76-2-304, MCA; and WHEREAS, The public is benefited by periodic evaluation of the relationship between adopted zoning
standards and the purposes for which they were adopted in relation to the circumstances existing in the
community; and WHEREAS, The City Commission has determined that the eventual elimination of existing signs that
are not in conformity with the provisions of this article is as important as the regulation of new signs;
and
WHEREAS, Equitable application and readily understandable standards are important for the public benefit;
NOW THERFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
BOZEMAN, MONTANA : Section 1 Legislative Findings:
1. There is an advantage to making regulations as clear and readily understood as possible;
2. The community need for a particular regulation will vary over time and therefore it is appropriate to reevaluate the adopted standards from time to time;
3. The City has adopted urban renewal districts and taken other actions to make redevelopment and
reinvestment in existing commercial and industrial areas a community priority; and
4. The City Commission wishes to balance the interests of current sign owners who have acted to
comply with existing regulations with potential future sign owners who may benefit from revised regulations.
Section 2
That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by revising section 38.28.060, Signs permitted
upon the issuance of a sign permit, to read as follows: A. The following on-premises signs are permitted in the indicated zones subject to a sign
permit:
304
- 2 -
Table 38.28.060 Non-Residential Sign Standards
Zoning District B-1 B-2 B-3 UMU M-1 M-2
Maximum sq ft Area 80 per
building
400 per
lot
250 per
lot
250 per lot 250 per
lot
250 per
lot
Allowed sq ft sign area per linear foot of building frontage
first 25 feet
1.5 or 21 2 or 31 2 2 or 31 2 or 31 2 or 31
Allowed sq ft sign area per linear foot of building frontage
> 25 feet
1 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Monument max size sq ft 32 32 32 32 32 32
Monument max height 5’ 5’ 5’ 5’ 5’ 5’
Monument setback 5’ 5’ 5’ 5’ 5’ 5’
Pole Style Max Height Prohibited 13’ 13’ 13’ 13’ 13’
Pole Style setback Prohibited 15’ 15’ 15’ 15’ 15’
Pole Style Clearance Prohibited 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’
Projecting sign max area 8’ 8’ 12’ 8’ 8’ 8’
Projecting sign max distance 4’ 4’ 6’ 4’ 4’ 4’
Rotating sign max area 2.5 sq ft 2.5 sq ft 2.5 sq ft 2.5 sq ft Prohibited Prohibited
Non-Residential Uses
Zoning District BP PLI HMU REMU RO
Maximum sq ft Area 250 per
lot
250 per
lot
250 per
lot
250 per lot 80 per
building
Allowed sq ft sign area per
linear foot of building frontage
first 25 feet
2 or 31 2 or 31 2 or 31 2 or 31 1 or
1.251
Allowed sq ft sign area per
linear foot of building frontage
> 25 feet
1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.5
Monument max size sq ft 32 32 32 32 12
Monument max height 5’ 5’ 5’ 5’ 5’
Monument setback 5’ 5’ 5’ 5’ 5’
Pole Style Max Height 13’ 13’ 13’ 13’ Prohibited
Pole Style setback 15’ 15’ 15’ 15’ Prohibited
Pole Style Clearance 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ Prohibited
Projecting sign max area 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’ 8’
Projecting sign max distance 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’ 4’
Rotating sign max area Prohibited Prohibited 2.5 sq ft Prohibited Prohibited
1 The larger value of the two listed applies when a building is located on a lot such that there is no
parking or other vehicular use area between the building facade and the street right-of-way or between
the building facade and a public pedestrian right of way adjacent to a street.
305
- 3 -
1. 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 is required for all commercial centers or
buildings consisting of two or more tenant spaces on a lot and shall be designed in accordance with
section 38.28.080.
2 a. Freestanding signs. One freestanding sign is permitted per zoned lot as defined in Section
38.42.1670. The maximum area for a freestanding sign shall be 32 square feet. A low profile
freestanding sign shall be set back a minimum of five feet with a maximum height of five 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 eight-foot minimum vertical clearance from the ground. Sign
area used for free standing signs is counted towards the maximum allowed sign area.
3 b. Wall signs. Wall signs are not to exceed a total signage allowance of two 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.
a. Regardless of the allowance for additional area the maximum area shall not exceed the
amount allowed for the district.
b. Lots fronting on two or more streets shall be permitted sign area for each building frontage.
c. Canopy, window and awning signs shall be classified as wall signs. Wall signs shall not
project above the top of a wall or parapet.
4 c. Projecting signs. One projecting sign per tenant, unless otherwise approved through a
comprehensive sign plan. Projecting signs shall not exceed eight square feet in area nor extend more
than four feet from the building. In the B-3 district, projecting signs shall not exceed 12 square feet in
area nor extend more than six feet from the building. Projecting signs shall provide a minimum sidewalk
clearance of eight feet.
a .(1) In the B-2, B-3, HMU, and UMU districts a projecting sign may include, either as
part of a larger sign or as the entire sign, a revolving sign with not more than 2.5 square feet of sign area.
A rotating sign located within the building does not need to provide the minimum sidewalk clearance
306
- 4 -
height. A rotating sign shall not exceed a rotational speed of one full rotation in two seconds. Signs
exceeding this limit shall be classified as a flashing sign.
2. 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 nonresidentially planned R-O district.,
the 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 nonresidentially 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 as defined in Section
38.42.1670 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.
a. 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 five feet and a maximum height of five feet. Pole-
style freestanding signs are not permitted in the B-1 and R-O zones.
b. Wall signs. Wall signs in the B-1 district are not to exceed a total signage allowance of
1.5 square feet per linear foot for the first 25 linear feet of building frontage and one 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 frontage minus any area devoted to freestanding and/or projecting signs. Canopy,
window and awning signs shall be classified as wall signs. Wall signs shall not project above the top of a
wall or parapet.
(1) 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.
(2) 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.
c. Projecting signs. One projecting sign per tenant. Projecting signs shall not exceed eight
square feet in area nor extend more than four feet from the building. Projecting signs shall provide a
minimum sidewalk clearance of eight feet.
(1) In the B-1 district a projecting sign may include, either as part of a larger sign or as the
entire sign, a revolving sign with not more than 2.5 square feet of sign area. A rotating sign located
within the building does not need to provide the minimum sidewalk clearance height. A rotating sign
307
- 5 -
shall not exceed a rotational speed of one full rotation in two seconds. Signs exceeding this limit shall be
classified as a flashing sign.
d. 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 five feet in height from the
finished grade. The sign must be setback at least five feet from the property line.
5 e. Residential building identification signs. For properties used for multihousehold
residential buildings, one residential identification wall sign per street frontage. Each sign shall not
exceed eight square feet in area.
B 3. Residential zones (R-S, R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, RMH, R-O, REMU).The following on-
premises signs are permitted in the indicated zones subject to a sign permit.
1 a. Subdivision and residential complex identification signs. For residential subdivisions
consisting of more than four residential units and for residential complexes with more than four
residential units and more than one building, one low profile, freestanding, neighborhood identification
sign per development entrance is allowed. Each sign shall not exceed 16 square feet in area or five feet
in height from the finished grade. The sign must be setback at least five feet from the property line.
2 b. Residential building identification signs. For properties used for multihousehold
residential buildings, one residential identification wall sign per street frontage. Each sign shall not
exceed eight square feet in area.
3 c. Signs appurtenant to residential principal and conditional uses and home occupations.
a. (1) Principal residential uses and home occupations shall be permitted commercial
message signage not to exceed four square feet in area and shall not be located in any required setback
area. In addition, home occupations shall be permitted one square foot signs on a mailbox or lamppost or
1.5 square feet of freestanding signage located a minimum of five feet from the property line.
b. (2) Principal residential uses shall be permitted noncommercial speech signs which
do not exceed 30 square feet in area nor five feet in height. Such sign must be setback at least 15 feet
from the property line.
c. (3) Conditional nonresidential type uses, such as churches, veterinary uses, golf
courses, day care centers and schools shall be permitted signage as if the underlying zoning were B-1.
Conditional residential type uses such as bed and breakfast homes, and fraternity and sorority houses,
shall be permitted signage as if the underlying zoning were R-O. Such signs may only be illuminated
during the hours of operation.
4 d. Planned unit developments. Commercial establishments within planned unit
developments where the underlying zoning is residential shall be permitted signage as if the lot were in a
B-1 zone.
308
- 6 -
C 4. Special districts and zones. The guidelines for the underlying zoning districts apply
unless otherwise addressed below:
1 a. Neighborhood conservation overlay district. Within this district, all signage is subject to
issuance of a certificate of appropriateness after review for compliance with the design guidelines for the
neighborhood conservation overlay district.
2 b. Entryway overlay district. Within this district, all signage is subject to issuance of a
certificate of appropriateness after review for compliance with the design objectives plan for entryway
corridors. Signage may exceed the underlying zoning district limitations by up to 20 percent upon
review and approval of a deviation by the review authority, after receiving the recommendation of the
appropriate design review advisory body, and upon receipt of a certificate of appropriateness.
3 c. Interchange zone. Signage may exceed the maximum total sign area permitted by
38.28.060.A by up to 25 percent upon review and approval of a deviation by the review authority, upon
the recommendation of the appropriate design review advisory body, and upon receipt of a certificate of
appropriateness. Each lot shall be permitted one freestanding sign.
a. (1) Low profile signs. One low profile sign per zoned lot. The maximum area for a
low profile sign shall be 40 square feet. The sign shall be setback a minimum of five feet with a
maximum height of eight feet.
b. (2) Pole-style signs. A pole-style freestanding sign shall be set back a minimum of 15
feet and will maintain at least an eight-foot minimum vertical clearance. Pole-style signs shall not
exceed a total area of 40 square feet or 16 feet in height, provided however, that for every two feet said
sign is set back from 15 feet beyond the street right-of-way, the height measured at grade may be
increased one foot, not to exceed a total of 32 feet, and the area may be increased by 2.5 square feet for
every two feet that said sign is set back 15 feet beyond the street right-of-way up to a maximum of 120
square feet.
4 d. Main Street historic district. Downtown (B-3). Permits for signs that encroach into the
public right-of-way shall be obtained in accordance with chapter 34, article 5 of the Municipal Code.
Section 3
That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by revising section 38.28.200 to read as follows:
A. The intent of this section is to eliminate The eventual elimination of existing signs that
are not in conformity with the provisions of this article is as important as the regulation of new signs.
B. Except as otherwise provided hereinwithin this section, the owner of any zone lot or other premises on which exists a sign exists that does not conform with the requirements of this article and for
which there is no prior, valid sign permit shall remove such sign.
309
- 7 -
C B. All signs which were legally permitted prior to June 22, 1997, are considered legal,
permitted signs under this article. Except as provided for in subsection CD of this section, said sign, if nonconforming with this article, may not be: 1. Replaced except with a conforming sign;
2. Changed in copy (except for signs specifically designed to be changed in copy, such as
readerboards with changeable letters);
3. Structurally altered to extend its useful life; or 4. Expanded, moved or relocated except as allowed below.
D C. No legal, nonconforming sign may be altered or enlarged in any way which increases its
nonconformity, but any existing signage, or portions thereof, may be altered by decreasing its
nonconformity (except as provided in subsection DE of this section).
E D. Any lot with a nonconforming sign may not add, additional relocate, or replace signage, except as provided below, until all signs on the lot are brought into conformance with this article. The
exceptions listed below do not apply to off-premise signs.
1. Any site modification reviewed only as a permit type described in 38.19.060, 38.19.070,
38.19.080, 38.19.130, or 38.19.140. requires a certificate of appropriateness (except when the certificate
of appropriates is solely for the purpose of placing energy collection equipment), site plan review or reuse application will necessitate compliance for all existing and proposed signage on the lot.
2. A sign legally permitted prior to June 22, 1997 which must be relocated due to a physical
alteration to or expansion of a public right of way.
Section 4
Repealer. All resolutions, ordinances and sections of the Bozeman Municipal Code and parts
thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
Section 5
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.
Section 6
Severability. If any portion of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or
circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions of this ordinance which
may be given effect without the invalid provisions or application and, to this end, the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be severable.
Section 7
Codification. Sections 2 and 3 shall be codified as appropriate within Article 38.28, BMC. Section 8
310
- 8 -
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
the first reading at a regular session thereof held on the ___ day of ___, 2013.
_______________________ SEAN A. BECKER
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________
STACY ULMEN, CMC City Clerk
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 ___, 2014.
_______________________ SEAN A. BECKER Mayor
ATTEST: ______________________
STACY ULMEN, CMC
City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________ GREG SULLIVAN City Attorney
311
Page 1 of 10
Z-13246, Staff Report for Revision to Commercial Signage and Non-
conforming Sign Provisions Municipal Code Amendment
Date: City Commission public hearing December 16, 2013
Project Description: A text amendment to Sections 38.28.060 and 38.28.200, BMC, to
revise formatting for non-residential sign standards, to revise calculations for
multiple frontage buildings, and to revise the non-conforming sign provisions.
Project Location: Applicable throughout all areas on the City of Bozeman zoning map.
Recommendation: Approval
Recommended Motion: Having reviewed the application materials, considered public
comment, and considered all of the information presented, I hereby adopt the
findings presented in the staff report for application Z-13246 and move to
provisionally approve Ordinance 1875.
Report Date: Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Staff Contact: Chris Saunders
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1 – RECOMMENDATION AND FUTURE ACTIONS ........................................ 2
SECTION 2 - STAFF ANALYSIS........................................................................................... 2
Section 76-2-304, MCA (Zoning) Criteria ......................................................................... 2
APPENDIX A –AFFECTED ZONING AND GROWTH POLICY PROVISIONS ............... 6
APPENDIX B – DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND................ 7
Description: ......................................................................................................................... 7
Unresolved issue: ................................................................................................................ 8
Background: ........................................................................................................................ 9
APPENDIX C – NOTICING AND PUBLIC COMMENT ................................................... 10
APPENDIX D – APPLICANT INFORMATION AND REVIEWING STAFF.................... 10
312
Z-13246, Staff Report for Revision to Commercial Signage and Non-conforming Sign
Provisions Municipal Code Amendment Page 2 of 10
SECTION 1 – RECOMMENDATION AND FUTURE ACTIONS
Project Name: Revision to Commercial Signage and Non-conforming Sign Provisions
Municipal Code Amendment
File: Z-13246
Having considered the criteria established for a municipal code amendment, the Staff
recommends the approval of the text as submitted.
The Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing on text on December 3, 2013. They
recommended approval of the staff recommended amendments
The City Commission will hold a public hearing on the text of the amendment on December
16, 2013.
SECTION 2 - STAFF ANALYSIS
In considering applications for plan approval under this title, the advisory boards and City
Commission shall consider the following:
Section 76-2-304, MCA (Zoning) Criteria
A. Be in accordance with a growth policy.
Yes. Chapter 3 of the Bozeman Community Plan describes seven principles which guide the
land use policies. Neighborhoods and Sense of Place are two of these principles which are
affected by these amendments. The land uses allowed within a neighborhood are part of the
visual character and experience which help people form their sense of place. There are
several goals and objectives which interact with the amendments and these principles.
Signs are by design visually prominent and their size, location, type and quantity contribute
to the character of an area. For example, there are more projecting signs and fewer free
standing signs in the B-3 district than in the B-2 district.
Goal LU-1: Create a sense of place that varies throughout the City, efficiently provides
public and private basic services and facilities in close proximity to where people live and
work, and minimizes sprawl.
Rationale: A sense of community is strengthened by distinctive areas which
facilitate neighborhood identity. This is strengthened when essential services are
available and encourage informal interactions. Full featured neighborhoods allow
extensive interaction and build identity with a specific part of the community. A
sense of place does not prohibit change or continued evolution of the community.
Signs are used by businesses and community organizations throughout the community.
Adequate signs help a business or organization to be known, describe its services, and helps
313
Z-13246, Staff Report for Revision to Commercial Signage and Non-conforming Sign
Provisions Municipal Code Amendment Page 3 of 10
people locate it. Signs can be distracting to travelers or can infringe on adjacent properties if
placed or sized in certain manners. Signs can also help identify key landmarks in the
community and help to establish the character of a place. The various objectives cited below
give direction on some of the community priorities which signs affect. Redevelopment of
existing sites may include revision or removal of existing non-conforming signs. Having a
clearly understood standard for when such non-conformities must be corrected advances
these objectives.
The North 7th urban renewal board has requested that the present non-conforming sign
provisions be modified. They believe that the presently enacted non-conforming sign
removal requirement may inhibit redevelopment within the North 7th urban renewal area.
The proposed amendment enables a greater range of smaller scale reinvestment and
rehabilitation in a property before non-complying signs must be removed. It does not remove
all requirements for correction of non-conforming signs. The proposed amendment clarifies
the application of the non-conforming sign requirements when changes to a site are initiated
by a governmental agency changing right-of-way.
Objective LU-1.2: Review and revise regulatory standards and City policies to ensure
that development advances the vision, goals, and objectives of this plan, and sprawl, as
defined in Appendix K, is discouraged.
Objective LU-1.4: Provide for and support infill development and redevelopment which
provides additional density of use while respecting the context of the existing
development which surrounds it. Respect for context does not automatically prohibit
difference in scale or design.
Objective LU-3.1: Ensure that development and redevelopment of this area, including the
adaptive reuse of historic buildings, is done in a manner which enhances, and is
compatible with, the current community fabric.
Objective LU-3.2: Encourage the use and redevelopment of underutilized and brownfield
sites to provide employment and housing which will help to maintain the vibrancy and
vitality of the Historic Core area.
Objective ED-1.1: Support business creation, retention, and expansion. Emphasize small
businesses, ‘green’ businesses, and e-businesses.
B. The effect on motorized and non-motorized transportation systems.
Neutral. The proposed amendments revise standards for signs. No changes to transportation
standards are proposed. Review of proposed signs will follow existing procedures. No
changes to sign setbacks, heights, or maximum size which may cause vision encroachments
or otherwise impede transportation systems are proposed.
314
Z-13246, Staff Report for Revision to Commercial Signage and Non-conforming Sign
Provisions Municipal Code Amendment Page 4 of 10
C. Secure safety from fire, panic, and other dangers.
Neutral. The proposed amendments do not change the restrictions on signs which may be
confused with traffic control or emergency signals.
D. Promote public health, public safety, and general welfare.
Yes. The proposed amendments do not change the requirements for provision of water or
sewer systems, provision of emergency response capability, or similar existing standards.
Generally, it promotes the public welfare when regulations are matched to community
priorities and are able to be understood by the public. The proposed amendments seek to
improve readability and clarity of the standards by reformatting some standards into a table
rather than multiple paragraphs of text. This should make it easier to see the relationships
between different zoning districts.
E. Reasonable provision of adequate light and air.
Neutral. The amendments do not affect this criterion.
F. Prevention of overcrowding of land.
Neutral. These amendments do not affect density or intensity of use, setbacks, parking
requirements or other standards which may affect this criterion.
G. Avoiding undue concentration of population.
Neutral. The proposed amendments do not address residential density issues. Nor do they
address allowed intensity of non-residential users within the defined districts.
H. Facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools,
parks, and other public requirements.
Neutral. The amendments do not alter the requirements for mitigation of infrastructure
impacts. The site plan, conditional use, or subdivision review procedures remain as presently
constituted and are adequate to analyze and mitigate demands for services.
I. Conserving the value of buildings.
Yes. The proposed amendments remove perceived or real barriers to reinvestment in existing
development with non-conforming signs. When properties are maintained they retain value
for themselves and for adjacent properties. This may make it easier to keep economically
viable activities in place or to provide new opportunities within existing buildings. The
proposed changes do not materially modify the amount of total sign area allowed to
businesses. Some buildings located at corners may be allowed more sign area but are still
limited to the overall area cap applicable to the zoning district.
J. Character of the district.
Yes. The amendments primarily apply to the non-residential zoning districts. These
amendments are carefully constructed to allow the character of the district to be preserved.
315
Z-13246, Staff Report for Revision to Commercial Signage and Non-conforming Sign
Provisions Municipal Code Amendment Page 5 of 10
The maximum sign size or setbacks are not being changed. The nature of signs permitted is
not being changed. The amendments continue to require that any new sign placed be in
compliance with adopted standards.
K. Peculiar suitability for particular uses.
Neutral. The proposed amendments do not make material changes to the various zoning
districts. These districts themselves have previously been found acceptable. The current
application does not alter the zoning map. Therefore, evaluation about the suitability of a
specific district to a specific site is not required.
L. Encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the jurisdictional
area.
Yes. The proposed amendments do not make material changes to the various zoning districts.
These districts themselves have previously been found acceptable. The current application
does not alter the zoning map. The amendments could be supportive of reinvestment in
existing developed areas which avoids unnecessary outward expansion and encourages
continued use of areas which have existing municipal services in place.
M. Promotion of Compatible Urban Growth.
Neutral. The proposed amendments do not alter the ability of the City to expand. They do not
change the character of the affected districts in way that would cause them to be a problem to
adjacent non-municipal areas. The amendments do not affect provision of any municipal
services.
316
Z-13246, Staff Report for Revision to Commercial Signage and Non-conforming Sign
Provisions Municipal Code Amendment Page 6 of 10
APPENDIX A –AFFECTED ZONING AND GROWTH POLICY
PROVISIONS
Zoning Designation and Land Uses:
The proposed amendments apply to the following zoning districts:
38.08 (Residential Districts – only Residential-Office)
38.09 (Residential Emphasis Mixed Use zoning district),
38.10 (Commercial zoning districts),
38.11 (Urban Mixed Use zoning district),
38.12 (Industrial zoning districts)
38.13. (Public Lands and Institutions) and
38.14 (Northeast Historic Mixed-Use zoning district).
The intent and purpose of the various zoning districts are provided in Sections 38.09.010,
38.10.010, 38.11.010, 38.12.010, 38.13.010 and 38.14.010, BMC. A review of these sections
shows no conflict between the proposed amendments and the purposes of the districts.
Section 38.28.010 establishes the intent and purpose of the sign regulations. No conflict
between the proposed amendment and the intent and purpose has been identified.
Adopted Growth Policy Designation:
The proposed amendment affects the implementing regulations for the Industrial, Business
Park Mixed Use, Community Core, Community Commercial Mixed Use, Regional
Commercial and Services, and Residential Emphasis Mixed Use growth policy designations.
These land use designations are described in Section 3.4 of the Bozeman Community Plan. A
matrix of related zoning districts and land use designations is provided below. The matrix is
located in Appendix C of the Bozeman Community Plan. The proposed amendments are not
expected to have any material impact on the character of any of the land use designations or
implementing zoning districts.
For discussion about conformance of the proposed amendments to the Bozeman Community
plan please see review criterion A.
317
Z-13246, Staff Report for Revision to Commercial Signage and Non-conforming Sign
Provisions Municipal Code Amendment Page 7 of 10
APPENDIX B – DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND
BACKGROUND
Description:
This proposed ordinance will:
1) Reorganize Section 38.28.060.A to consolidate multiple paragraphs of text into a table for
easier comparison of standards between non-residential districts and provide cross
references;
2) Amend 38.28.060.A to modify how commercial sign area is calculated by:
a) Allow calculation of sign area based on building frontage as defined in Section
38.42.430 without regard to determination of a primary or secondary frontage. This will have
the effect of allowing an increased amount of sign area which will still be limited by the
maximum amount allowed in each district.
b) Replacing a calculation of a percentage of building frontage for placement of parking
as it relates to sign area and substitute a direct ratio of additional sign area in the initial sign
calculation. This does not apply to the B-3 district.
c) Make provision for more than one projecting sign per tenant.
d) Revise sign calculations for residential-office district residential uses to allow a larger
amount of sign area.
3) Renumber 38.28.060 to provide additional clarity of topic and organization.
4) Clarify application of sign permitting processes to residential zones.
5) Revise the provisions for non-conforming signs, Section 38.28.200, to:
a) Clarify the intent of the nonconforming sign provisions.
b) Renumber the section’s paragraphs to improve clarify of topic and organization.
c) Clarify when non-conforming signs must become conforming in relationship to
development review of the site where the sign is located. A site being reviewed under the
provisions for Special Temporary Use Permit, Sketch Plan, or Certificate of Appropriateness,
Amendments to Plans, or Change in Use/Further Development do not require non-
conforming signs to be removed but any new signs must be compliant to municipal code.
d) Create specific exceptions from the requirement to make a sign conforming when
changes to the sign are required due to certain governmental actions.
318
Z-13246, Staff Report for Revision to Commercial Signage and Non-conforming Sign
Provisions Municipal Code Amendment Page 8 of 10
Unresolved issue:
The North 7th Urban Renewal Board submitted a letter to the City Commission on October 7,
2013 requesting three changes to the City’s sign regulations. The City Commission directed
staff to prepare and amendment for consideration by the public. The draft ordinance directly
addresses two of the three requested subjects; non-conforming signs and changes to signs
which result from a governmental agency working within or expanding a public right of way.
There was a third request for a definition of “change in copy” and to not require signs to
come into compliance with a change in copy. The method for understanding definitions is
established in the following section:
Section Sec. 38.42.010. Definition of terms and interpretation of language.
“A. Terms specifically defined in regulations issued by the department of justice and the
department of transportation to implement the Americans with Disabilities Act or in
referenced standards shall have those meanings. Otherwise, all words in this chapter shall
be first defined as provided in this article and, if not defined herein, shall be defined as in
the latest edition of "The Illustrated Book of Development Definitions" by Harvey S.
Moskowitz and Carl G. Lindbloom, and if not defined in "The Illustrated Book of
Development Definitions," shall have their customary dictionary definitions as defined in
collegiate dictionaries in the sense that the context implies.”
Staff has researched this issue. Looking into several resources it appears that the common
dictionary definition of the term ‘copy’ is very similar to the meaning used by the sign
industry. See examples below for definitions and sources. Therefore staff does not believe
there is a material benefit to be obtained from adding a new definition to the municipal code.
“Copy: The words and/or message displayed on a sign.”
A Legal and Technical Exploration of On-Premise Sign Regulation: An Evidence Based-
Model Sign Code
“Copy: The text of a news story, advertisement, television commercial or the like.”
Random House Webster’s College Dictionary
“Sign Copy: Any combination of letters or numbers which is intended to inform, direct or
otherwise transmit information.”, or
“Sign Copy: Any graphic, word numeral, symbol, insignia, text, sample, mode, device or
combination thereof which is primarily intended to advertise, identify, or notify.”
A Planners Dictionary, Planning Advisory Services Report
If the Commission ultimately decides it is appropriate to have a specific definition then staff
suggests adding the definition as a new Section 38.42.765 to read “Copy: The words and/or
message displayed on a sign.”
319
Z-13246, Staff Report for Revision to Commercial Signage and Non-conforming Sign
Provisions Municipal Code Amendment Page 9 of 10
A change in copy most frequently occurs when a new business seeks a new sign or there is a
material change to an existing business’s sign such as a change in logo or franchise identity.
These are material changes to a sign and have been one of the most frequent ways of
bringing signs into compliance. A repair which keeps the same design of the sign face is not
considered change in copy. Staff does not believe it appropriate to allow non-conforming
signs to continue after a change in copy as these are materially different signs and other
businesses seeking new signs are required to comply with the existing sign code.
Background:
The City’s first sign standards were in Ordinance 8, adopted on May 1, 1883. This was the
same year the City was incorporated. The original regulations were:
“Section 16. Hereafter it shall be unlawful for any person to have or keep any projecting
sign on his or her premises on Main Street, or build or keep any window projecting
beyond the line of the lot of the said premises. Neither shall any wooden awning or post
to support the same be allowed in front of any premises on Main Street, and any person
violating the conditions of this section shall be fined in any sum not exceeding twenty-
five dollars, and the city marshal is hereby authorized to remove all obstructions, after
giving thirty days notice to the parties keeping the same, provided that all such as
manifestly obstruct the sidewalk shall be moved immediately.
The City has maintained some form of sign regulations at all known times. The present sign
code was adopted as part of an overall zoning code update in 1991. It has been amended in
parts from time to time since then.
As sign regulations change there is the possibility that existing signs may not conform to a
newly adopted standard. The City Commission has established a policy that bringing existing
non-conforming signs into compliance is important. The City has used different approaches
to achieve this. At one point, a formal amortization schedule was adopted which required
non-conforming signs to be replaced by a particular date. This was later changed to require
that non-conforming signs be replaced when the site underwent some defined amount of
change or when a new sign was installed. This approach is in place today and remains, but
less aggressively, with these amendments. An intermediate step was then created which
allowed a non-conforming sign to be modified to reduce its non-conformity rather than
having to become fully compliant immediately.
In 2011, a list of known existing non-conforming signs was created. This was not based on a
formal survey of signs throughout the community but was created from Staff knowledge and
sign permit records. At that time, there were 98 substantial signs identified as non-
conforming. A copy is attached. A review of that list shows that there have been nine non-
conforming signs removed by the end of October 2013. This leaves 89 substantial non-
conforming signs from the list yet to become compliant. During that same time period there
were 249 permanent signs approved. Some additional non-conforming signs have been
320
Z-13246, Staff Report for Revision to Commercial Signage and Non-conforming Sign
Provisions Municipal Code Amendment Page 10 of 10
placed illegally since the list was created. These are not included in the count and are code
enforcement issues.
APPENDIX C – NOTICING AND PUBLIC COMMENT
Noticing for a text amendment is provided by publication in the legal advertisement section
of the Bozeman Daily Chronicle on November 17 and 24, 2013. A copy of the notice is also
included on the City’s website. A copy of the draft ordinance and staff report will be
included as well. Notice will be provided at least 15 and not more than 45 days prior to the
Zoning Commission and City Commission public hearings. As of the writing of this report
no public comment had been received. A copy of the draft amendments were also provided to
the Bozeman Chamber of Commerce. The N 7th TIF Board was also informed of the
schedule and proposed changes.
APPENDIX D – APPLICANT INFORMATION AND REVIEWING STAFF
Applicant: City of Bozeman, PO Box 1230, Bozeman MT 59771
Representative: Department of Community Development
Report By: Chris Saunders, Policy and Planning Manager
321
322
323
Page 1 of 4
This listing of known non-conforming signs was originally developed in August 2011. It is not
exhaustive but serves to illustrate changes over time and has been updated to conditions as of
October 2013. Signs which have been removed between August 2011 and October 2013 are
shown as struck through and in red text. Nine non-conforming signs were removed. During the
same time period there were 249 permanent sign permits were issued.
East Main-18
Owenhouse’s freestanding sign on the corner of Mendenhall and Black
Downtown Antiques projecting sign
The Chrystal Bar’s projecting sign
Western Café s roof sign
The Billboard by the Garage
The Billboard by Empire Building
712 E. Main has two signs, one needs to be removed
Exxon Station’s free standing sign at 803 E. Main
Jackpot Casino’s free standing sign
Blue Sky Motel’s free standing sign
Buggy Bath Car Wash’s free stranding sign
Western Heritage Inn’s free standing sign
Ranch House Motel’s free standing sign
Exxon Station’s free standing sign at 1211
Continental Motor Inn’s free standing sign
KO’s Club pole sign
Rainbow Auto Sales free standing sign
Auto Stop’s free standing sign
West Main-20
Vargo’s projecting sign
324
Page 2 of 4
The Ellen awning sign
Imperial Inn pole sign
Holy Rosary Catholic Church
Willson School’s Free Standing sign
Sport’s Cove projecting sign
Conoco has two pole signs, one time reduction for size, height, and distance
Scoop’s free standing and roof signs
Lewis & Clark Motel’s free standing signs
Wendy’s free standing sign
Arby’s pole sign
Subway’s pole sign
Round House’s pole sign
McDonald’s pole sign
Jackpot Casino’s signs over large and has two
Pierce Flooring pole sign too large
Centruy 21’s pole sign, animated
Taco Time, reduced height and stopped spinning, but is too close to street
Town Pump has two freestanding signs too close to the street, variance for distance.
Fuddruckers’s free standing sign, no permit, may be approved
7th Ave-17
Dairy Queen’s free standing sign
You & Eye Optical’s pole sign
Royal “7” Motel, flashing, too large free standing sign
Gallatin Radiator Service Center abandoned roof sign
325
Page 3 of 4
Car Quest Valley Motor Supply’s free standing sign
Bozeman Granite Works roof sign
Speedy Lube’s pole sign
Rainbow Motel’s pole and roof signs
Bozeman’s TV & Appliance free standing sign, working on conformance
American Federal Savings Bank free standing sign
Cat’s Paw free standing sign
U-Haul’s fee standing sign
Gallatin Valley Furniture’s free standing sign
Bozeman Glass’s roof sign
Speedy Glass free standing sign
Bozeman Inn’s free standing sign
Exxon station, pole sign too tall, free standing sign too big, working on compliance
Others-30
8th Signs, roof sign
Haufbrau 2 roof signs
22nd 409 S. Business free standing sign too tall
Babcock Office Gallatin Cleaners Laundry projection roof sign
Molly Brown’s free standing sign
Northern Lights free standing sign
J B’s free standing sign
Beal Ardesson’s Redwing Shoe Repair free standing sign
Black Tom Alignment Center projection roof sign
Bond Mr. T’s using a temporary sign
326
Page 4 of 4
Bryant Degidio Sheet mental off-premise sign
Cedar A double billboard
Church Heritage Restoration, home occupation sign too large
College Colombo’s, free standing and roof signs
Sather Eye Clinic, free standing and roof signs
Frontage Sunrise Campground billboard
Grand Grand Avenue Church sign too big and too tall
Griffin AmeriGas, sign too large
Whalen Tire, pole sign too tall
Haggerty Life of Montana, sign too large
Highland Dahl Funeral Chapel, reduced from 2 to 1 freestanding, still 1 ft. too tall
Huffine Montana Woolen Shop, pole and roof signs, oversigned
Lea Multi-tenant sign to large and tall
Mendenhall Straightaway, projecting sign too large
J & V Restaurant Supply, pole sign
Western Plumbing, pole sign, need maintenance
315 multi-tenant sign too close to the street
317 Alpine Properties, sign too close to the street
403, Stuart Whitehair, sign too close to the street
Smoker Friendly, free standing and roof sign
Billboards 11 billboards along the interstate counting the double one on Cedar and
the Sunrise Campground
2 billboards still in town, one at Empire, and one at the Garage.
327
328
329
Page 1 of 7 Zoning Commission Minutes – December 3, 2013
ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2013
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson Garberg called the meeting to order at 6:15 p.m. and took attendance.
Members Present:
Erik Garberg, Chairperson Trever McSpadden
George Thompson
Julien Morice
City Commission Liaison: Taylor Taylor
Members Absent:
Guests Present:
Brandon Edwards Matt Cotterman Mackenzie Sacry
Staff Present:
Brian Krueger, Development Review Manager Tom Rogers, City of Bozeman Associate Planner
ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT
None forthcoming
ITEM 3. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 19, 2013 Approved unanimously ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW
1. U.D.C. ARTICLE 38.28 Signs ZCA #Z-13246-Zone Code Amendment application as
requested by owner, applicant and representative, City of Bozeman, PO BOX 1230, Bozeman MT, 59771, to amend the Bozeman Municipal Code to reorganize Section 38.28.060, to amend 38.28.060.A how commercial sign area is calculated, and to amend
Section 38.28.200 to modify the standards applicable to non-conforming signs and when
non-conforming signs must be brought into compliance. Additional sections may be
amended if it is determined to be needed to address these same issues during the course of review. City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. (Saunders)
Development Review Manager Krueger presents the staff report on behalf of Policy and Planning
Manager Saunders.
Mr. Krueger: This is a city initiated application as directed by the City Commission. The staff report
330
Page 2 of 7 Zoning Commission Minutes – December 3, 2013
and text of this zone code amendment is on website and this action is a legislative decision. The
proposed revisions are to provide clarity and consolidate multiple paragraphs of text into a single
table of sign standards and change how buildings with multiple street frontages are allocated sign
area. This will allow an easy way for someone to figure their sign square footage for a building for a particular zoning district. We also added very clear language that allows which sign allotment to
use. There is a provision that clarifies and adds allowance a multitenant building to allow each
tenant to have their own projecting sign. Section 060 of Article 28 offers clarification of topic and
organization and application of sign permitting processes to residential/commercial zones.
Provisions of section 200 clarify the intent of the provisions of nonconforming signs. More
clarification has been included due to some confusion in the past as to when during a project review;
signage on a particular project has to come into conformance with the regulation. Mr. Krueger
reviewed the text amendment process. Back to change in copy language the North 7th Urban
Renewal Board did request recommended clarification of what change in copy actually means. Planner Saunders looked at definitions and staff does not believe this necessary as the dictionary definition is adequately clear. Mr. Krueger showed an example (Western Heritage Inn) of a change
in copy.
Staff reviewed criteria for zone code amendment and staff addresses all 13 criteria, and is recommending general approval of the text as submitted. This is a legislative action it does not apply to any specific property and it’s under the City’s authority to develop standards for
community. No public comments have been received, and tonight is the first of two public hearings.
Chairperson Garberg: are there any questions of staff? Mr. Morice: when does a sign change trigger a building permit?
Development Review Manager Krueger: Typically a building permit is required for nearly all signs.
We recently changed the intake process for our sign permit application which now originates in our building division because in most cases there is sign fastening, electrical connection being made, the rare condition when you would not attain a building permits is when there sliding a simple panel in
an existing sign and not modifying and there is no structural change. Almost always a building
permit is issued.
Mr. Thompson: The Ellen theater sign is dilapidated and nonconforming and makes me a little uncomfortable.
Development Review Manager Krueger: There is nothing in our sign ordinance that prevents
individuals from maintaining their nonconforming signs or keeping them in well maintained condition.
Mr. Thompson: Signs make our city somewhat unique. My concerned would be the unforeseen
consequences of the signage proposal as it reads. The fact that there is no public comment, I’m
wondering if letters were sent out to all property owners with nonconforming signs to address the review of what’s being proposed and discuss this at a public hearing.
331
Page 3 of 7 Zoning Commission Minutes – December 3, 2013
Development Review Manager Krueger: There is nothing in the proposal that make it more
restrictive for existing nonconforming signs, and the Community Development department does not
send out letters advising individuals their signs are nonconforming. We don’t have the resources for
that.
Mr. McSpadden: I just want to go to the North 7th Urban Renewal Board, just glancing through their
thoughts, the planning department is ok with most of those changes, in terms of the right of way
acquisition not triggering sign code evaluation. The only thing was the change of copy, the only
reason I look at that is if we incorporate their suggestions into the recommendation I want to make sure I’m clear and gave example of Cat’s Paw .
Development Review Manager Krueger: Agrees with example Mr. McSpadden gave.
Mr. Taylor: My recollection is that in addition to the proposal on signs if we want to redo and make sign bigger that was ok, did I understand that correctly? Are you not recommending that part?
Development Review Manager Krueger: In the letter they submitted for this specific action, that
wasn’t part of their request, they are requesting that change in copy be clarified to mean something
different than the common meaning, and that is not something that staff incorporated into the sign recommendation. Many examples of times when nonconforming sign becomes a conforming sign is
during a change in copy when a change in business from one individual business to another, and is a
common time for a conforming sign come into conformance.
Mr. Taylor: so the example of Cat’s Paw if I decided to purchase the Cat’s Paw and rename it to Taylor’s, under the proposal and your recommendation I would not be able to do that?
Development Review Manager Krueger: that’s correct, under the proposal, our recommendation and
the current code we don’t. There is a list of about 90 signs that are non conforming.
Mr. Taylor: Did you talk about the original sign code?
Development Review Manager Krueger: I did not go into the background. There is a background
section in the staff report that talks about how City of Bozeman regulations have changed over time
to address the various standards.
Mr. Taylor: The problem with making it too easy to keep the sign is that those who have been
persistent end up getting rewarded and so the balance is at what point does everyone have the same
competitive advantage rather than different competitive advantages because of persistence and or
attempts to modify something that the Commission thought was a good idea and most of the business complied with.
Mr. McSpadden: I have one more question, using the Cat’s Paw example if I just want to clean up
the existing sign am I ok within the new revision? Can I keep my nonconforming sign?
Development Review Manager Krueger: The non conforming language states that the trigger
would be structural alteration. It’s between maintenance, and structural altered of sign.
332
Page 4 of 7 Zoning Commission Minutes – December 3, 2013
Maintenance does not necessitate compliance. One of the reasons we have the provision, is the
intent is over time to amortize the nonconforming signs out to level playing field. It is not an
incentive program, but to allow an existing nonconformance sign to remain.
Mr. Thompson: So if just a replacement of State Liquor Store to Dairy Bar that would be altering
the copy and he could not be able to keep his sign.
Development Review Manager Krueger: That’s correct. There is a provision in nonconforming
chapter section that allows bringing a nonconformance into closer compliance. You couldn’t replace liquor store with milk bar but you could remove parts and still attain closer compliance and the sign
could remain.
Mr. McSpadden: On same note, if we are working closer to compliance, change font, or neon, end
product is closer to compliant.
Development Review Manager Krueger: Read from existing language regarding change. There is a
fine line between structural alteration to extend its life and maintenance or changes in copy.
Chairperson Garberg: Has this proposal come from internal review and what they are proposing and not from public outreach?
Development Review Manager Krueger: No, there have been long discussion in the North 7th
corridor about the issue and the Commission has heard from business owners over time and one of
reasons you are seeing a letter from N. 7th is they believe that the City has regulations that are contrary to their mission.
Chairperson Garberg: Opening up to public hearing, seeing there is no one to speak, I am going to
close this portion of the hearing. Bring back here for discussion, motion, and vote.
Seeing no other member comments, it was closed. Motion: Mr. McSpadden moved to hereby adopt the findings in the staff report for application #Z-
13246 and move to recommend City Commission approval of the Ordinance 1875, Mr. Thompson
seconded the motion. Chairperson Garberg: Do you want to speak to your motion?
Mr. McSpadden: Is there an opportunity to find some common ground? Some of the language
sounds like there would be room for interpretation. Generally am in support of this. Mr. Thompson: There are some signs that I really enjoy and are unique. I think it would be helpful
if it were reasonable to allow these property owners of these unique “historical” signs to keep and
maintain, until the complete usage changes.
Mr. Morice: Writing these laws given the different circumstances is pretty tough, and encourage maintenance and allowing them to do a little bit more with them and simplifying process is a good
333
Page 5 of 7 Zoning Commission Minutes – December 3, 2013
thing.
Chairperson Garberg: My thought is twofold- where is it fair? Other issue is protection of certain
signs. Are there any questions on the change of copy?
Mr. McSpadden: On the motion the staff did find some common ground there, but struggling with
work toward incentivizing the building and on the other side there is a little bit of opportunity for
both and there is not a perfect way to create perfect code. Like idea to move closer to conformance.
We said we have opportunities to bring it closer. I could be over thinking that.
Mr. Taylor: the notion of people are not maintain their property because of the sign, drives me
crazy. So anything to encourage making the changes is a good thing. I don’t want the sign to get in
the way of those changes like fixing front sidewalk or maintenance of site.
Chairperson Garberg: I will call for the question, all those in favor of the motion as stated please
indicate by saying aye. Motion carries unanimously. We will continue with our second item on
agenda.
2. Lot 1 Block 4 Laurel Glen Subdivision Phase 1 ZMA #Z-13229 – Zone Map Amendment
Application as requested by the owner Manhattan Bank, 2610 W. Main Street, Bozeman MT
59718, and applicant is Great Western Investments, 4721 Glenwood Drive, Unit D,
Bozeman, MT 59718 and representative Caddis Engineering and Land Surveying, PO Box
11805, Bozeman MT 59719 and to rezone the property from B-1, Neighborhood Business
District to R-2, Residential Two-Household Medium Density District on ~6.1591 acres. The
property is legally described as Lot 1, block 4, Laurel Glen Subdivision, phase 1, City of
Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana and is addressed as 964 Longbow Lane. (Saunders)
Planner Rogers: This is regarding the Zone Map Amendment for the B-1 to R-2 zoning change. Mr. Rogers described the location and parcel size. There is a full analysis in the staff report. The
department has not heard any public comment to date.
Mr. Morice: Is there a vacant lot nearby? Just northwest or west of Flanders that was also not built.
Planner Rogers: Unfortunately I can’t pull that up.
Chairperson Garberg: Is there any other question for staff? At this time I would like to hear the applicant, please state your name and address for the record.
Matt Cotterman: I’m with Caddis Engineering here tonight on behalf of the applicant Great Western
investments. Mr. Cotterman reviewed history of this project. We request the favorable recommendation to allow for a residential zoning use.
Chairperson Garberg: any questions to the applicant?
Mr. Morice: You said the applicant met with some of homeowners and they are more acceptable of
the R-2 than the R-4.
334
Page 6 of 7 Zoning Commission Minutes – December 3, 2013
Matt Cotterman: Yes, the applicant did.
Chairperson Garberg: Any more questions to the applicant?
Jeff Mortonson: I am a representative of Manhattan Bank; the bank has owned this property and have had no interest for the commercial use. We request the favorable recommendation to allow for a residential zoning use.
Chairperson Garberg: Any questions to the applicant?
Chairperson Garberg: Opening up to public hearing,
Brandon Edwards: Lot 1 of Laurel Glen subdivision its only a 4.5 acre parcel. We wanted to thank
Great Western Investments for working with us, we were provided a proposed site plans, and there
would be some commercial space planned in the other phase of the subdivision. The neighborhood wants to continue to be in the loop of this project.
Mackenzie Sacry: Reiterated concerns for the neighborhood. Thinks the zoning change would be
something we could live with.
Seeing no other public comments, it was closed.
Chairperson Garberg: I am going to close this portion of the hearing. Bring back here for Board
discussion motion and vote.
Motion: Mr. Morice moved to hereby adopt the findings in the staff report for application #Z-13329 and move to recommend approval Laurel Glen Subdivision Lot 1, Block 4, Zone Map Amendment
with staff recommended contingencies. Mr. Thompson seconded the motion.
Chairperson Garberg: Mr. Morice would you want to speak to your motion?
Mr. Morice: I support this
Mr. McSpadden: I will support this, the growth policy is tricky.
Mr. Thompson: I like adding the diversity to the neighborhood, affordable price point, incorporate
the HOA to this development and the existing homeowners are ok with this.
Chairperson Garberg: I will call for the question, all those in favor of the motion as stated please
indicate by saying aye. Motion carries unanimously. This Zone Map Amendment will be before the commission on December 16, 2013.
ITEM 5. NEW BUSINESS
Nothing from staff
ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT
335
Page 7 of 7 Zoning Commission Minutes – December 3, 2013
The Zoning Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:47p.m.
Erik Garberg, Chairperson
City of Bozeman Zoning Commission
Tom Rogers, Associate Planner, AICP
City of Bozeman DCD
336