Loading...
09. Ordinance 1369 - Zoning Text Amendment - Expansion of Nonconforming Uses - 1st ReadingFlatheade Development ice 723 5th Avenue East - Room 414 Kalispell, Montana 59901 Phone: (406) 758-5980 Fax: (406) 758-5781 REPORT TO: Kalispell Mayor and City Council FROM: Narda A. Wilson, Senior Planner Chris A. Kukulski, City Manager SUBJECT: Zoning Text Amendment - Expansion of Nonconforming Uses MEETING DATE: October 2, 2000 BACKGROUND: An application for an amendment to the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance has been filed to allow for minor expansions to nonconforming uses. As the regulations currently exist no expansions can be made to a nonconforming use other than routine maintenance. The applicant is proposing to allow the expansion of a nonconforming use and associated structures up to a maximum of 50 percent subject to a nonconforming use permit. More specifically, expansions of 25 percent or less would be reviewed and granted administratively by the zoning administrator. Expansions of more than 25 percent but less than 50 percent would be subject to the procedures for a conditional use permit and evaluated under the conditional use permit criteria. The applicant has a medical office in the east side of Kalispell that is zoned R-3, Residential. The office is grandfathered under the non -conforming use provisions of the zoning ordinance. However, the current provisions in the zoning ordinance do not allow any modifications to the building that would result in an expansion of the square footage of the building or the "use." The applicant would like to place a small addition onto the existing building to provide for better client access to the building and to function as additional office space. Under the current zoning regulations, no modifications or alterations can be made to a nonconforming building other than routine maintenance. Any properties within the Kalispell zoning jurisdiction that are occupied by a non -conforming use could potentially be affected by the proposed change. This section in the regulations has been problematic occasionally in the past particularly in situations where even minor modifications or expansions to conforming uses cannot be made, for instance to add a handicapped bathroom. Often the only other option available to the applicant is to apply for a zone change. That course of action is generally not the best option either because it would result in the creation of an island zoning that is generally incompatible with the surrounding zoning and would allow for many other uses on the property in addition to the existing nonconforming use. The other option is to request an amendment to the zoning regulations, but typically this course of action is not pursued. Flathead County, Whitefish and Columbia Falls allow the expansion of a nonconforming use up to 50 percent of the building, structure or use subject to a conditional use permit. Providing Community Planning Assistance To: • Flathead County • City of Columbia Falls • City of Kalispell • City of Whitefish Memo to Council on Text Amendment for Expansion of Nonconforming Uses September 22, 2000 Page 2 The planning board wanted the council to consider another issue that relates to the treatment of nonconforming uses in Kalispell. Currently the regulations do not allow a change from one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use, but require the same use to occupy the building. For instance, when Gardner Auction moved to Highway 93 South from their former Airport Road location, no other "auction facility" could be found to occupy the property. Under the zoning that was the only other use which could go into the building. As a result the zoning on this property was ultimately changed from the previous RA-1, Low Density Residential Apartment, to I-1, Light Industrial. The light industrial zoning was introduced into an area that is otherwise residential. Additionally, any number of uses in additional to an auction facility are now allowed in that area. Flathead County, Whitefish and Columbia Falls all allow a change in nonconforming uses subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit provided the impacts associated with the new nonconforming use would not be any greater in terms of traffic, hours of operation, storage of materials and overall impacts than the previous nonconforming use. This information is being included to provide a clearer understanding of how nonconforming uses have been addressed in other jurisdictions in relation to the policy in Kalispell. The Kalispell City -County Planning Board held a public hearing at their regular meeting of September 12, 2000 and have unanimously recommended that the city council approve the proposed changes to the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. RECOMMENDATION: A motion to adopt the ordinance on first reading would be appropriate. FISCAL EFFECT'S: Potentially minor positive effects. ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the city council. Narda A. Wilson Chris A. Kukulski Senior Planner City Manager Report compiled: September 22, 2000 Attachments: Transmittal letter and Exhibit A (changes) FRDO report KZTA-00-01 and application materials Draft minutes from 9/ 12/00 planning board meeting H: \ FRDO \TRANSMIT \ KALISPEL \ 2000 \KZTA00-1 MEM. C AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 27.25.020 AND 27.25.030 OF THE KALISPELL ZONING ORDINANCE, (ORDINANCE NO. 1175), BY AMENDING THE NONCONFORMING LOTS, USES AND STRUCTURES REGULATION TO ALLOW FOR MINOR EXPANSIONS TO A NONCONFORMING USE, AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE • WHEREAS, Flathead Regional Development Office has submitted a written request to amend Sections 27.25.020 and 27.25.030 of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, by allowing for minor expansions to nonconforming uses, and WHEREAS, the request was forwarded to the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission by the Flathead Regional Development Office after having been evaluated under 27.14.030, Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, and WHEREAS, the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission recommended that the text of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance be amended to reflect the change, and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the FRDO Report and the transmittal from the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning • and hereby adopts the findings made in Report #KZTA-00-1 as the Findings of Fact applicable • this Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL • THE CITY • KALISPELL AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The City of Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No. 1175, is hereby amended as follows: 27.25. 020: Nonconforming Uses of Land. Where at the time of passage of this code lawful use of land exists which would not be permitted by the regulations imposed by this title, the use may be continued so long as it remains otherwise lawful, provided: a. No such nonconforming structure may be altered or enlarged in any way which increases its nonconformity except as provided in -Section 1368 nonconforming.wpd 27.25.030-144,1 • any structure • portion thereof may be altered to decrease its nonconformity. b. Should such structure be moved for any reason for any distance whatever, it shall thereafter conform to the regulations for the district in which it is located after it is moved. C. Should a nonconforming use of land be discontinued for a period of one hundred eighty (180) days, further use of the property shall conform to this ordinance. 27 . 2 5. 03 0: Nonconforming Uses of Structures. If lawful use of a structure, or of structures and premises, exist at the effective date of adoption or amendment of this code that would not be allowed in the district under the terms of this title, the lawful use may be continued so long as it remains otherwise lawful, providing that: a. No existing structure devoted to a nonconforming use shall be enlarged, extended, constructed, or structurally altered, unless the use is changed to a permitted use, or the enlargement, extension, construction or structural alteration is accomplished according to the Drovisions of Section 27.25.030(6). b. Any nonconforming use may be extended to any other part of a building designed for such use, but no such use may be extended in any way to occupy land outside the building except as provided in Section 27. 25. 03 0 (6) . C. Any structure, or structure and land, in or on which a nonconforming use is superseded by a permitted use shall thereafter conform to the regulations of the district in which it is located and the nonconforming use may not thereafter be resumed. d. Whenever a nonconforming use of a structure or a premises ceases for one hundred and eighty (180) days, the structure or premises shall not thereafter be used except in conformance with the regulations of the district in which it is located. The term "ceases" as used in this subsection shall mean that the activity in question has not been in 1368 nonconforming.wpd 2 operation for a period of one hundred eighty (180) days. e. Where nonconforming use status applies to both structure and land, the removal or destruction of the structure shall eliminate the nonconforming status of the land. f. A structure devoted to a nonconforminq use may be enlarged, extended, constructed or structurally altered, and a use of land devoted to a nonconforming use may be enlarged or extended, if a nonconforming use permit is obtained. a. Any changes(s) allowed by such permit(s) is/are limited to a cumulative increase of 50 percent in the area devoted to the nonconforming use. The allowable increase shall apply to each of the following.:- the gross square footage of land occupied by the use, the gross square footage of the footprint of the structure(s) and the gross square footage of the floor area of the structure(s). b. Whenever the expansion of_a nonconforming use involves an increase of 25 percent or less of the area devoted to the nonconforming use, a nonconforming use expansion permit shall be issued as an administrative conditional use permit as per Section 27.34.040(2). C. A nonconforming use expansion permit for an expansion involving more than 25 percent, but less than or eqLial to 50 percent, shall be obtained by following the procedures for a conditional use permit set for in Section 27.34.010, et seq.- In which case, the city council shall review the application under the provisions of Section 27.34.080 through 27.24.200. 27.25.040. Nonconforming Accessory Uses and Structures. SECTION II® All parts and portions of ordinance No. 1175 not amended hereby remain unchanged. 1368 nonconforming.wpd SECTION III. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND SIGNED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY • KALISPELL THIS •* OF 1 ••• Wm E. Boharski Mayor Theresa White City Clerk 1368 nonconforming.wpd 4 Flathead Regional Development Office 723 5th Avenue East - Room 414 KalispelL Montana 59901 Phone: (406) 758-5980 Fax: (406) 759-5781 September 21, 2000 Chris Kukulski, City Manager City of Kalispell P.O. Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903 Re: Zoning Text Amendment - Expansion of Non -Conforming Uses Dear Chris: The Kalispell City -County Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesd.y, September 12, 2000 and held a public hearing on a request by Louise Swanberg for a text amendment addressing the expansion of nonconforming uses. The proposed amendments are intended to allow the limited expansion of non -conforming uses. Narda Wilson presented a staff report and stated that staff supported the proposal and recommend approval of the proposed text amendment. The expansion would allow for expansions of less than 25 percent by administrative review and from more than 25 percent up to 50 percent through a conditional use permit. During the public hearing, Randall Ogle, attorney for the petitioner, spoke in favor of the proposed amendment stating that this would allow Dr. Swanberg to square off the building and create an entrance with an awning for handicapped accessibility. No one spoke in opposition. The board discussed the proposal and adopted staff report #KZTA-00-1 as findings of fact and, based on those findings unanimously voted to forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve the amendments to the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. Please schedule this matter for the October 2, 2000 regular You can contact this board or Narda Wilson at the Flathead Office if you have any questions regarding our recommendation. Sincerely, Kalispell City -County Planning Board 'resident A. JohnPn JJ/NW/dw City Council meeting. Regional Development Providing Community Planning Assistance To: Flathead County ® City of Columbia Falls - City of Kalispell ® City of Whitefish Zoning Text Amendment — Louise E. Swanberg September 12, 2000 Page 2 Attachments: FRDO Report #KZTA-00-1 /Application Materials Draft planning board minutes of 9 / 12 / 00 c w/Att: Theresa White, Kalispell City Clerk c: R. Ogle, Box 899, Kalispell, MT 59903-0899 D. Greer, P.O. Box 7606, Kalispell, MT 59903 H: ... \TRANSMIT\ KALISPEL\ 2000 \ KZTA-00- I EXHIBIT A PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THIS CHAPTER CHAPTER 27.25 NONCONFORMING LOTS, USES AND STRUCTURES 27.25.010 Intent 27.25.020 Nonconforming Uses of Land 27.25.030 Nonconforming Uses of Structures 27.25.040 Nonconforming Accessory Uses and Structures 27.25.045 Changes to Nonconforming Residential Structures 27.25.050 Repairs and Maintenance 27.25.060 Reconstruction 27.25.010: Intent. It is the intent of this chapter to permit nonconformities which were lawful before the adoption of this code to continue until they are removed. It is further the intent of this chapter that nonconformities shall not, unless otherwise permitted by this chapter, be enlarged upon or expanded, or be used as grounds for adding other structures or uses prohibited elsewhere in the same district. (Amended Ordinance No. 1218.) Nonconforming uses are declared by this chapter to be incompatible with permitted uses in the district involved. However, to avoid undue hardship, nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to require a change in the plans, construction or designated use of any building on which actual construction was law -fully begun prior to the effective date of adoption or amendment to this title and which actual building construction has been carried on diligently. A change of tenancy, ownership, or management of any legally existing nonconforming use is allowed. 27.25.020: Nonconforming Uses of Land. Where at the time of passage of this code lawful use of land exists which would not be permitted by the regulations imposed by this title, the use may be continued so long as it remains otherwise lawful, provided: a. No such nonconforming structure may be altered or enlarged in any way which increases its nonconformity except as provided in Section 27.25.030(5), but any structure or portion thereof may be altered to decrease its nonconformity. b. Should such structure be moved for any reason for any distance whatever, it shall thereafter conform to the regulations for the district in which it is located after it is moved. C. Should a nonconforming use of land be discontinued for a period of one hundred eighty (180) days, further use of the property shall conform to this ordinance. 27.25.030: Nonconforming Uses of Structures. If lawful use of a structure, or of structures and premises, exist at the effective date of adoption or amendment of this code that wo 11d not be allowed in the district under the terms of this title, the lawful use may be continued so long as it remains otherwise lawful, providing that: a. No existing structure devoted to a nonconforming use shall be enlarged, extended, constructed, or structurally altered, unless the use is changed to a permitted use, or the enlargement, extension, construction or structural alteration is accomplished according to the provisions of Section .7.25.030(6). b. Any nonconforming use may be extended to any other part of a building designed for such use, but no such use may be extended in any way to occupy land outside the building except as provided in Section 27.25.030(6,1. c. Any structure, or structure and land, in or on which a nonconforming use is superseded by a permitted use shall thereafter conform to the regulations of the district in which it is located and the nonconforming use may not thereafter be resumed. d. Whenever a nonconforming use of a structure or a premises ceases for one hundred and eighty (180) days, the structure or premises shall not thereafter be used except in conformance with the regulations of the district in which it is located. The term "ceases" as used in this subsection shall mean that the activity in question has not been in operation for a period of one hundred eighty (180) days. e. Where nonconforming use status applies to both structure and land, the removal or destruction of the structure shall eliminate the nonconforming status of the land. of a MINI"• 11 •• - •- ., •• - • - •. •- - •• •'• S•! •• •u• •• - -.•• •• •-••• • .• •.• •• -• • • •- �.. •- 27.25. 40. Nonconforming Accessory Uses and Structures. No use or structure which is accessory to a principal nonconforming use or structure shall continue after such principal use or structure shall have ceased or terminated, unless such accessory use or structure shall thereafter conform to all the regulations of the zoning district in which it is located. Nonconforming signage shall be further regulated by Section 27.24.150 of this ordinance. 27.25.045. Changes to Nonconforming Residential Structures. A residential structure conforming with respect to use but nonconforming with respect to height, setback or lot coverage may be enlarged or altered provided that the enlargement or alteration does not further deviate from these regulations. Further, the repair or replacement of bearing walls is permitted on any nonconforming residential structure. (Amended Ordinance No. 1218.) 27.25.050: Repairs and Maintenance. On any nonconforming structure or portion of the structure containing a nonconforming use, work may be done on ordinary repairs and fixtures, wiring, plumbing, or repair or replacement of non -bearing walls, to an extent not exceeding ten (10) percent of the replacement value of the building in any one year, provided that such work does not increase the cubic content of the building. Nothing in this Chapter shall be deemed to prevent the strengthening or restoring to a safe condition of any building or portion thereof declared to be unsafe by any official charged with protecting the public safety, upon order of such official. 27.25.060: Reconstruction. A nonconforming building, structure or use upon the land having been wholly or partially damaged or destroyed by fire or other calamity may be reconstructed, provided that reconstruction is commenced within one hundred eighty (180) days of the date of destruction. If reconstruction has not commenced within one hundred eighty (180) days, the property, building and structure or use upon the land shall not thereafter be occupied, except by a use which is permitted in the district in which it is located. Any reconstruction must be completed without unreasonable delay. This provision shall not exempt the structure or use from other applicable regulations nor does it allow the replacement of structures or uses that were willfully demolished, destroyed, or removed. H: \... \KZTA\00\KZTA00- I.DOC NW KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MEETING SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 CALL TO ORDER AND Johnson called the meeting to order at approximately 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Members present were: Jean Johnson, Rob Heinecke, Bill Rice, Don Garberg, Brian Sipe, Don Hines, and Greg Stevens. Dale Pierce and Don Mann were absent. Narda Wilson represented the Flathead Regional Development Office. There were approximately 11 people in the audience. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion by Garberg and seconded by Sipe the minutes of the meeting of August 8, 2000 were unanimously approved. SWANBERG ZONING A request by Louise, E. Swanberg for amendments to the AMENDMENT Kalispell Zoning ordinance addressing the expansion of non -- conforming uses. STAFF REPORT Narda Wilson gave a presentation on staff report KZTA-00-1, where staff recommended approval of the amendment. Wilson stated there were limited alterations that could be made to a building with non -conforming uses. She said most of the lots in the east side area were residential with the exception of Woodland Floral, two medical offices, and the Court House East. Wilson stated Swanberg wanted to make a small addition to her medical office and found out that, under the zoning regulations, expansion of non -conforming uses was not allowed. Staff felt the proposal was reasonable and was generally consistent with how the other jurisdictions handled non -conforming uses. Wilson said within the last several years the County, Whitefish, and Columbia Falls had all made changes to their zoning regulations, allowing expansion of non- conforming uses up to 50%, subject to a conditional use permit. Staff felt that non -conforming use standards should be more in line with the County and what other jurisdictions were doing. Wilson noted, as an aside, the City's treatment of changes to non -conforming uses should be as a separate issue. The issue before the Board dealt with the expansion of non- conforming uses. Staff felt it served the public, as well as the investment of the property owner by encouraging them to maintain the property, knowing it would be a long term investment. She said there was always the balance between what's good for the neighbor and what's good for the individual, and thought this proposal struck a reasonable balance. She said the proposed change would allow expansion of 25% or less under administrative review and 25% to 50% would require a conditional use permit. Garberg asked if it went through the administrative review process and there was a denial, did that allow for recourse to the applicant. Wilson answered that anytime there was a decision made by the Zoning Administrator it could be appealed to the Board of Adjustment. Sipe asked and Wilson answered that the regulations being proposed were not the same as Columbia Falls, Whitefish, and the County and that they were less restrictive. She said in the other jurisdictions an expansion of up to 50% would require a conditional use permit. Wilson said the proposed amendment would provide more flexibility because; they're not paying a fee if it is less than 25%, they're not waiting to go through public hearing or waiting for City Council to take an action. She said it would be less restrictive. Johnson stated it would have been an excellent vehicle to address a change in non -conforming issues. Wilson said she didn't want to confuse the two issues and if the Board felt it had merit they could review it later. PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened to those who wished to speak on the application. PROPONENTS Randy Ogle, 20 Woodland Ave, an attorney representing Dr. Swanberg, spoke in favor of the application. Ogle stated Swanberg wanted to square off her building and do some enhancements, i.e. improve the entry ways, make them handicapped accessible, and put some awnings over them to protect from ice in winter. Through collaborating with the City and County they were directed to proposing an amendment. He thought it met the needs of Dr Swanberg. Ogle said the clinic had been in the neighborhood for 40 to 50 years, her father practiced there. He said she did not want to change the use, but bring it more current. They thought it would be an enhancement to the neighborhood because if they were not allowed to maintain and improve the structure it may foster dilapidation of buildings over time and degradation of the neighborhood. He said she simply wanted to square off the building and do some maintenance and asked for the Board's support. OPPONENTS No one wished to speak and the public hearing was closed. MOTION Garberg moved and Heinecke seconded to adopt FRDO staff report KZTA-00-1 as findings of fact and, based on those findings recommended the Kalispell City Council adopt the proposed amendments as outlined in Exhibit A. BOARD DISCUSSION There was a brief discussion between Garberg, Johnson, Wilson, and Stevens regarding the administrative process, in the event of a denial. It was concluded that statute said they Kalispell City -County Planning Board September 12, 2000 Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 11 The consensus of the Board was that the administrative process was good, it would speed up the process for the applicant, and the Board of Adjustment was set up for the appeal process in case of denial. ROLL CALL On a roll call vote the motion to adopt staff report KZTA-00-1 as findings of fact passed unanimously for the text amendment and was forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. APEX 1 LLC A request by Apex 1, LLC for annexation into the City of ANNEXATION Kalispell and an initial zoning designation of R-4 and RA-1 in southwest Kalispell in conjunction with the subdivision known as Stratford Village Subdivision. STAFF REPORT Narda Wilson, representing the Flathead Regional Planning Department, gave a presentation on two staff reports; KA-00-6 (annexation and initial zoning), and P-00-5 (preliminary plat approval), and asked that the Board handle them as two separate motions. The Board was in agreement. Wilson stated Stratford Subdivision was on the summer agenda, but was pulled so they could acquire the adjoining property. She pointed out the proposed subdivision on a site map. Wilson said that adding the property to the north resulted in a cleaner subdivision design. Staff reviewed the project briefly and noted R-4 zoning for the majority of the project and RA-1 zoning for the far west corner. She said the potential for duplexes was possibly 20-25%. She reported on roadways, saying the connections of South Meadows area and Sunnyside Drive would be important links in the roadway network of Kalispell. Wilson thought they would eventually come in with a by-pass design that would mitigate the traffic impacts. She said there would be an engineered drainage plan, which was outlined in the environmental assessment. PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened to those who wished to speak on the proposal. PROPONENTS Thor Jackola, 1830 3rd Ave. East, spoke as a representative of the subdivision. Jackola said he hoped to have their favor for the project. He said it was a good addition to Kalispell and met a lot of the needs, primarily geared to affordable housing. He said Wilson gave a good presentation and that he and Jim Burton would be happy to answer questions. Jackola stated that, from the report, they would concur with the density issue, saying that having the density level occur there was quite unlikely, but the developers would like to have the opportunity to place the duplexes as they saw fit in the development. He brought up one other issue, the parkland, and said Jim Burton would address that issue. Kalispell City -County Planning Board September 12, 2000 Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 11 O f. x... REPORTUrLATHEAD REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICE STAFF fR RRR A report to the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and the Kalispell City Council regarding a request for a text amendment to the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. A public hearing has been scheduled before the Kalispell City -County Planning Board for September 12, 2000 beginning at 7:00 PM in the Kalispell City Council Chambers. The planning board will forward a recommendation to the Kalispell City Council for final action. The applicant is proposing to amend Chapter 27.25, gonconforming Lots, Uses and Structures, of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance to create a provision that allows for the limited expansion of non -conforming uses. A. Petitioner and Owners: Louise E. Swanberg 610 Seventh St. East Kalispell, MT 59901 (406)756-7366 Randall S. Ogle Ogle & Worm, Attorneys at Law P.O. Box 899 Kalispell, MT 59903-0899 (406)752-7550 B. Mature of theRequest: The applicant has a medical office in the east side of Kalispell that is zoned R-3, Residential. The office is grandfathered under the non -conforming use provisions of the zoning ordinance. However, the current provisions in the zoning ordinance do not allow any modifications to the building that would result in an expansion of the square footage of the building or the "use." The applicant would like to place a small addition onto the existing building to provide for better client access to the building and to function as additional office space. Under the current zoning regulations, no modifications or expansions can be made to a nonconforming use other than routine maintenance. The applicant is proposing to allow the expansion of a nonconforming use and associated structures up to a maximum of 50 percent subject to a nonconforming use permit. More specifically, expansions of 25 percent or less would be reviewed and granted administratively by the zoning administrator. Expansions of more than 25 percent but less than 50 percent would be subject to the procedures for a conditional use permit and evaluated under the conditional use permit criteria. Cm Area Effected by the Proposed Changes: Any properties within the Kalispell zoning jurisdiction that are occupied by a non -conforming use could potentially be affected by the proposed change. The current regulations addressing non -conforming uses and structures are attached with the staff report along with the amendments (additions) noted as underlined text in Exhibit A. D. StaffDiscussion: As the board and council may be aware, the staff has had concerns about some elements of the zoning ordinance that are worthy of amending. This section in the regulations has been problematic occasionally in the past particularly in situations where even minor modifications or expansions to conforming uses cannot be made, for instance to add a handicapped bathroom. Often the only other option available to the applicant is to apply for a zone change. That course of action is generally not the best option either because it would result in the creation of an island zoning that is generally incompatible with the surrounding zoning and would allow for many other uses on the property in addition to the existing nonconforming use. The other option is to request an amendment to the zoning regulations, but typically this course of action is not pursued. Flathead County, Whitefish and Columbia Falls allow the expansion of a nonconforming use up to SO percent of the building, structure or use subject to a conditional use permit. The above discussion leads to another issue that relates to the treatment of nonconforming uses in Kalispell. Currently the regulations do not allow a change from one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use, but require the same use to occupy the building. For instance, when Gardner Auction moved to Highway 93 South from their former Airport Road location, no other "auction facility" could, be found to occupy the property. Under the zoning that was the only other use which could go into the building. As a result the zoning on this property was ultimately changed from the previous RA-1, Low Density Residential Apartment, to I-1, Light Industrial. The light industrial zoning was introduced into an area that is otherwise residential. Additionally, any number of uses in additional to an auction facility are now allowed in that area. Flathead County, Whitefish and Columbia Falls all allow a change in nonconforming uses subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit provided the impacts associated with the new nonconforming use would not be any greater in terms of traffic, hours of operation, storage of materials and overall impacts than the previous nonconforming use. This information is being included to provide a clearer understanding of how nonconforming uses have been addressed in other jurisdictions in relation to the policy in Kalispell. The statutory basis for reviewing a change in zoning is set forth by 76-2-205, M.C.A. Findings of Fact for the zone change request are discussed relative to the itemized criteria described by 76-2-203, M.C.A. The master plan has designated certain areas, which the planning jurisdictions for specific uses and the zoning of those areas should generally be consistent with the land use designations of the master plan. The master plan does not specifically address the issue of nonconforming uses, but it can be assumed that they will occur. It may be useful to note that the Montana planning statutes specifically recognize nonconforming uses (Section 76-2- 105) and provide for their continuation. Generally, the adaptive reuse of structures would be anticipated at some point or either the nonconforming use would continue unabated. Allowing the continuation and expansion of nonconforming uses would not necessarily further the goals of the master plan, but it does protect the investment of the property owner who has had an otherwise lawful use of the property The proposed amendments would not typically have a significant impact on the overall traffic volumes in a particular area. By restricting the percentage that a nonconforming use could expand should result in minimal impacts to traffic generation, traffic congestion or other impacts. The changes would not have a significant effect on traffic congestion. The proposed amendments would not reduce any security from fire or other health and safety issues since all new additions and modifications to existing buildings would be required to be constructed according to building code requirements and with the approval of the fire department. The proposed change would not compromise the safety and security from fire or other dangers. -.. . <. • - The general health and welfare of the public will be promoted by ensuring that the character of the area in which the nonconforming use is located would not be significantly impacted. Additionally, there is a provision for the notification of adjoining property owners in cases where the expansion is in excess of 25 percent. Additionally, the public health and welfare of the public will be served by protecting the investment property owners have made in their structures and land by allowing reasonable expansions and modifications to the nonconforming uses. Light and air between and surrounding buildings would not be significantly impacted in a manner that would be inconsistent with anticipated residential development of the zone. The setbacks, height restrictions, lot coverage and other applicable development standards would be adhered to thereby providing adequate light and air. An existing nonconforming use may, in some instances result in the overcrowding of land because the most intrusive nonconforming uses are businesses in a residential zone. Businesses usually generate more traffic, require more parking and have more activity that would be anticipated with residential uses. However, the limitations on the expansions that can be made to nonconforming uses should also limit the impacts associated with the use to a reasonable level and would not necessarily lead to overcrowding. Public services and facilities are generally available to all areas of the city and the expansion of a nonconforming use would not generally have a significant impact on the provision of services. Zoning adopted for a specific property is generally done to reflect the uses anticipated for the area under the master plan. With the proposed amendments, site suitably could be evaluated on a case -by -case basis and mitigation of impacts associated with the expansion can be required to make the use more compatible. Nonconforming uses, by their very nature, are not generally considered to be suitable uses in the zoning district in which they are located. The character of the zoning district in which a nonconforming use might be located would not be significantly altered because of the allowance for minor expansions of the use. As part of the review process, conditions of approval can be developed to assist in limiting the impacts associated with the use. The proposed review process should provide a mechanism to give reasonable consideration to the character of the area in which the expansion of the nonconforming use would occur. This amendment would conserve the value of buildings and the investment the property owner has made. However, creating added value to a nonconforming use may prolong the live of an incompatible use and may conserve the value of the building beyond that which would otherwise occur. By their very nature, nonconforming uses are contrary to zoning in the area in which they are located and would be contrary to the promotion of specific land uses in the jurisdiction. The proposed change would not encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the planning jurisdiction. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION., From a purely technical and philosophical standpoint, the proposed zoning text amendments do not encourage the elimination of nonconforming uses but rather may increase their longevity. However, from a practical and equitable standpoint the proposed text amendments allow some flexibility in how nonconforming uses are addressed. Additionally, it protects the investment property owners have made in their property and usually in their business. Staff recommends that the Kalispell City -County Planning Board adopt FRDO staff report #KZTA-00-1 as findings of fact and, based on these findings, recommend to the Kalispell City Council the proposed amendments be adopted as outlined in Exhibit A. (Note: The underlined text are the amendments. No text is being deleted or otherwise modified.)