Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZC-120313 MinZONING 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: Carson 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 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. 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. 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 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. 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 has 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 will support the findings Mr. McSpadden: He clarified that though he had stated “I will support this, the growth policy is tricky” per the last meeting minutes, his intention was to state that the review of the Growth Policy Amendment application had been difficult to harmonize with the city’s Growth Policy. 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 The Zoning Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:47p.m.   Erik Garberg, Chairperson City of Bozeman Zoning Commission Brian Krueger, Development Review Manager City of Bozeman DCD