06. Ordinance 1239 - Schaus - Zoning Text Amendment - 1st ReadingORDINANCE NO. 1239
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 27.24.090, City of Kalispell Zoning
Ordinance No. 1175.
NOW, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
KALISPELL AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. That Section 27.24.090, Permitted Signs in
Zones R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4, City of Kalispell Zoning
Ordinance No. 1175 is hereby amended to read as follows:
(5) "one non -illuminated sign not
exceeding two square feet below the eave line
attached to the building in conjunction with a
residential use."
SECTION II. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty
(30) days from and after the date of its final passage by
the City Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR OF THE CITY OF
KALISPELL THIS DAY OF , 1996.
Douglas D. Rauthe, Mayor
ATTEST:
Debbie Gifford, CMC
Clerk of Council
Flathead Regional Development Office
723 5th Avenue East - Room 414
Kalispell, Montana 59901
Phone: (406) 758-5980
April 18, 1996 Fax: (406) 758-5781
Al Thelen, Interim City Manager
City of Kalispell
P.O. Drawer 1997
Kalispell, MT 59903
RE: Kalispell Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment - Schaus Request
Section 27.24.090, Permitted Signs in Zones R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4
Dear Al:
The Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission met in regular session on
Tuesday, April 9, 1996, and held a public hearing on the following request by Lisa S. Schaus
to amend the text of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Section 27.24.090, Permitted signs in Zones R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4 by adding a
subsection (5) "one non -illuminated two sided sign not to exceed six square feet
in area attached to the house, in connection with a home occupation. "
Narda Wilson with FRDO discussed the background of the request by Ms. Schaus, which was
based on her need for a sign in conjunction with her art studio. The City explored options with
her. A variance was not an option because she could not meet the criteria, and rezoning was
not what she wanted. A text amendment was also an option. The proposal affects home
occupations in the residential zones in the City of Kalispell. The research involved during the
review of the requested text amendment uncovered some weaknesses in the current City
ordinance which may be considered for amendment at a later date. Based on research, staff
recommended a modification to the request, which was to allow four square feet of signage,
rather than the proposed six square feet.
The applicant and her representative spoke in favor of staff's recommendation. Mrs. Shaus stated
that she appreciated the desire to maintain the residential character of neighborhoods, but
believed there is a need for signage in conjuction with home occupations.
The Board discussed, at length, the effects of the proposed amendment, and noted the signage
needs of other residential uses, such as bed & breakfasts and day cares are not addressed in the
sign ordinance. Aesthetics were also a concern discussed in detail. After adopting the findings
of fact in FRDO report #KZTA-96-1, the Board voted 7-1 in favor of recommending the
following amendment to the zoning ordinance, by adding a subsection:
Providing Community Planning Assistance To:
• Flathead County 9 City of Columbia Falls • City of Kalispell • City of Whitefish •
Al Thelen, Interim City Manager
City of Kalispell
Re: Kalispell Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment -
Section 27.24.090, Permitted Signs in Zones R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4
April 18, 1996
Page 2
Section 27.24.090, Permitted Signs in Zones R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-4.
(5) One non -illuminated sign not exceeding four square feet per face below the eave line in
conjunction with a residential use.
This recommendation for the text amendment is forwarded to the City Council for the April 22,
1996 work session and subsequent May 6, 1996 regular City Council meeting for final action
on the request.
Please contact the Commission or Narda Wilson of FRDO, if you have any questions.
Respectfully Submitted,
KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING COMMISSION
Pamela J. B. Kennedy
Vice President
Attachments: FRDO Report #KZTA-96-1
Minutes of April 9, 1996 Planning Board meeting
c: Diana Roche, City of Kalispell
P. O. Box 1997
Kalispell, MT 59901
Lisa Shaus
652 North Main
Kalispell, MT 59901
... TRANSMIT\ 1996\KZTA96-1. TRM
LISA S. SCHAUS
TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE
• iO STAFF REPORT96
' '' 1 9
A report to the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission and the Kalispell
City Council regarding a request for an amendment to the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. A public
hearing has been scheduled before the Kalispell City -County Planning Board on April 9, 1996
beginning at 7:00 p.m. A recommendation from the Planning Board will be forwarded to the
Kalispell City Council for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. Petitioner: Lisa S. Schaus
652 North Main Street
Kalispell, MT 59901
(406)752-4686
B. Proposed Amendment:
A request has been made by Lisa Schaus for an amendment to the text of the Kalispell
Zoning Ordinance, Section 27.24.090, Permitted Signs in Zones R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4,
by proposing to adding an additional subsection as follows: (5) "one non -illuminated two
sided sign not to exceed six square feet in area attached to the house, in connection with
a home occupation".
B. Affected Zoning Districts:
Residential zoning districts R-1, R-2, R-3 and R4 in the City of Kalispell would be
affected by this zoning text amendment.
C. Staff Consideration and Discussion of the Proposal:
Background:
Prior to the adoption of the updated Kalispell Zoning Ordinance in 1992, there were no
sign regulations in the City therey creating unrestricted signage. During the updating of
the zoning ordinance, the community embarked on the task of crafting reasonable sign
regulations. This process was prolonged, controversial and at times contentious.
However, the current sign regulations reflect the efforts of the staff, ad hoc sign
committee, the Planning Board and City Council and many community members.
In researching some of the issues which were discussed during the process, it appears
that concerns revolved generally around height, size, number, square footage, location,
flashing signs and other sign issues generally associated with the business community.
No documented discussion was in the file regarding signs in residential areas or signs in
conjunction with home occupations.
Home occupations are permitted in all residential districts as an accessory use and subject
to certain criteria. Currently, the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance addresses signs in
conjunction with home occupations in one section dealing with accessory uses: Section
27.22.020(2) (a)(11)(iii) states (no home occupation shall be permitted in which there is
associated therewith)... "Any exterior display, exterior storage of materials, signs (except
as otherwise permitted), house calls after 9:00 PM..."
As referenced above "except as otherwise permitted, " is in Section 27.24.090; Permitted
Signs in Zones R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4. This section allows (1) temporary signs, (2) one
non -illuminated freestanding ground sign, not exceeding 20 square feet per face in
connection with a permitted or conditionally permitted non -dwelling use, (3) a
illuminated subdivision sign not exceeding 20 square feet, and (4) that no sign shall
exceed six feet above grade.
"Except as otherwise permitted" appears not to permit any signage in conjuction with a
home occupation other than a one square foot nameplate in conjunction with a residence
would be allowed.
In attempting to research the issue of what is considered a "standard" within other
communities and what is considered "good planning practice" staff consulted several
different sources. First, the American Planning Association has two publications
prepared by the Planning Advisory Service called "Planning for Home Occupations," and
one called "Home Occupation Ordinances." These publications discuss the increasing
trend toward home based businesses in modem society and the changes in the ways
businesses are conducted primarily because of the electronic communication technology
currently available. These publications also discuss some of the problems associated with
home based businesses and the potential negative impacts home occupations can have on
the residential character of a neighborhood.
Furthermore, these publications deal with elements found in a home occupation ordinance
such as a clear definition of a home occupation, drafting an intent and purpose statement,
listing permitted and prohibited home occupations, performance standards and review
procedures.
The most relevant topic from this publication is on, of course, signage allowed in
conjunction with home occupations, and potential impacts on the surrounding
Pa
r" neighborhoods. A first step toward preventing glaring visual impacts of a home
occupation on surrounding neighborhoods is the regulation of signs. The publication
states that although many ordinances do not allow signs; most allow at least a small, non -
illuminated sign identifying the business.
Staff reviewed selected home occupation ordinances from Rockford, Illinois (no signage);
Washington County, Oregon, (two square feet); Visala, California (no signage); Pullman,
Washington (one flush -mounted sign not over two square feet in area); Redding,
California (no signage).
Additionally, staff contacted other jurisdictions within the state of Montana and found the
following standards:
City of Whitefish: allows four square feet
City of Columbia Falls: allows six square feet (as policy)
City -County of Missoula: allows two square feet on the building
City of Bozeman: allows two square feet on the building
City of Helena: allows two square feet
City of Hamilton: no signage
City of Billings: no signage
EVALUATION BASED ON STATUTORY CRITERIA
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.
1. Does the requested zone comply with the Master Plan?
Home based businesses and home occupations are not specifically addressed in the master
plan and no specific estimates are given to address the impact or contribution home based
businesses may have on the economy of the community.
2. Is the requested zone designed to lessen congestion in the streets?
Provided that the performance standards outlined in the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance under
which a home occupation must operate, no increase in traffic congestion should occur.
3. Does the requested zone give reasonable consideration to the character of the district?
Residential districts should be generally void of any permanent, overt advertising which
would detract from the residential qualities of a neighborhood. A six square foot sign
may be excessive in size to be considered to be compatible with a residential area.
4. Will the requested zone secure safety from fire, panic and other dangers?
No impacts to security from fire or other emergencies can be directly associated with this
proposal.
:1 is, " 15It#
Providing independent employment opportunities for a community will generally promote
the health and welfare of a community. Some of those employment opportunities are
home based businesses which can be conducted in a way that does not negatively impact
a residential community. Allowing a limited amount of signage in conjunction with a
home occupation appears a reasonable means to promote entrepreneurial enterprises
among the community while meeting the needs of a residential area to retain its
neighborhood character.
6. Will the requested zone provide for adequate light and air?
The proposed amendment would not effect development standards relating to light and
air. These are generally addressed with setbacks, density limits, height limitation and
lot coverage standards.
7. Will the requested zone prevent the overcrowding of land?
The underlying density within a specific zoning district would control the amount of
development which can occur on a specific site. This proposal would not have an impact
on land densities.
8. Will the requested zone avoid undue concentration of people?
Again, this amendment does not affect density which would be addressed by the
underlying district.
9. Will the requested zone facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water,
sewerage, schools, parks, and other public requirements?
Public infrastructure and services would not be significantly affected by the zoning text
amendment.
10. Does the requested zone give consideration to the particular suitability of the property
for particular uses?
Accepted planning practices allow home occupations as an accessory use in most
residential districts and have been deemed a suitable use by consensus within
communities and among planning professionals. The use of signage with a home
4
occupation, however, has not enjoyed the same level of consensus. Whether to allow
signage and, if so, how much is very much a matter of community standards. It is
staff s opinion that six square feet of signage does not give adequate consideration to the
particular suitability of allowing this much signage in a residential district. A more
suitable standard appears to be a sign affixed to the building of either four square foot
sign, as allowed in Whitefish, or a two square foot sign, a common standard.
11. Will the proposed zone conserve the value of buildings?
Incompatible uses generally result in a devaluation of buildings and property. Promoting
compatibility among uses while providing for the needs of the general public is at the
heart of zoning. Excessive signage within an residential community detracts from a
neighborhood and creates visual clutter. This, in effect, undermines neighborhood
integrity. Limited and reasonable signage maintains a balance between individual and
community needs, promotes compatibility and therefore conserves the value of buildings.
12. Will the requested zone encourage the most appropriate use of the land throughout the
jurisdiction?
Within certain zoning classifications business are permitted and within other zoning
classifications businesses are not permitted. Likewise, within certain zoning
classifications residential uses are permitted and in other they are not. A business which
requires excessive advertising, parking or frequent deliveries impacts residential areas
ways that are not appropriate. A home occupation, by its very nature, does not
detrimentally impact a residential area in any of these ways. It appears that six square
feet may be considered excessive signage by other community standards. This would not
encourage the most appropriate use of the land throughout the jurisdiction.
OU 1
Although the staff is in favor of allowing some signage in conjunction with a home occupation
provided it is affixed to the building, it appears that six square feet may be excessive. After
researching what other communities allow and what the American Planning Association provides
in their publications, it appears that two to four square feet may be more appropriate for
Kalispell. A home occupation is considered an accessory use to a residence and should not have
any impacts which change the character of a neighborhood. Signage is one of the most obvious
visual impacts which can be placed on a community or neighborhood and should be restricted
to appropriate areas within a community.
5
The Flathead Regional development Office would recommend that the Kalispell City -County
Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt Staff Report KZTA-96-1 as rmdings of fact Md
recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed zoning text amendment with
modifications as follows:
"Section 27.24.090, Permitted Signs in Zones R-1, R 2, R 3 and RA.
(5) One non -illuminated sign not exceeding four square feet per face affixed to the
building in conjunction with a home occupation.
HA ...1KZTA1961K.ZTA96-1. RPT
.t �
PETITION FOR SIGN PLACENIENT INDICATING HOME OCCUPATION
We, the undersigned acknowledge and support the placement of a sign, not exceeding four
square feet in area on the structure described as Willow Wind. Studio. The home occupation is located
on the comer of North Main Street and West Nevada Street. We understand that the property is
zoned R3 and that the applicant conforms to the requirements specified for home occupation
according to local zoning ordinances. We feel that the display of the sign will in no way jeopardize
the residential appeal of the area or cause a disruption to the community. Considering the option of
rezoning this property to a commercial status, we prefer to support the conservative use of attractive
signage to indicate the location of a home occupation.
ti:►- Z ADDRESS
Page 1 of
Lisa S. Schaus Fine Ards
'Villovo'Vind Studio
Watercolors 652 N. Main St
Mixed Media Kalispell, Nq 5990i
Shirt Design (406) 752-46&
EMMA
w
Q.d (v 7L(A) i 1 Alit, ST o��
%5—I h Ww
_ G
. a
Page 2 of 3
l s/
c M7
Page 3 of _2