H2. Ord. 1853, Accessory Dwelling Units
Development Services Department
201 1st Avenue East
Kalispell, MT 59901
Phone: (406) 758-7940
Fax: (406) 758-7739
www.kalispell.com/planning
REPORT TO: Doug Russell, City Manager
FROM: PJ Sorensen, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Ordinance 1853 - Second Reading – Zoning Text Amendment –
Accessory Dwelling Units
MEETING DATE: February 1, 2021
BACKGROUND: At the City Council meeting on September 14, 2020, there was interest expressed
in allowing accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in the city. A Council work session was held on
September 28 to discuss various related options and staff was asked to take the matter to the Planning
Board for input. The Planning Board held a work session to discuss the matter on November 10 and
held a duly noticed public hearing on December 15, 2020, to consider the request. The Planning
Board forwarded a recommendation to approve the proposal on a 6-1 vote.
The Kalispell City Council discussed the matter at a work session on January 11, 2021. At the
regularly scheduled City Council meeting on January 19, 2021, the Council approved the first reading
of Ordinance 1853 on a 7-2 vote.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Kalispell City Council approve the second
reading of Ordinance 1853, an ordinance amending the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance 1677, to allow
accessory dwelling units within certain zoning districts to be a permitted use in the City of Kalispell,
and declaring an effective date.
FISCAL EFFECTS: There are no anticipated fiscal impacts at this time.
ALTERNATIVES: Deny the request.
ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance 1853
December 15, 2020, Kalispell Planning Board Minutes
Staff Report/Maps
Public Comments
c: Aimee Brunckhorst, Kalispell City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO. 1853
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE KALISPELL ZONING ORDINANCE (ORDINANCE NO. 1677), TO ALLOW ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (ADUs) WITHIN CERTAIN ZONING DISTRICTS TO BE A PERMITTED USE IN THE CITY OF KALISPELL, AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Kalispell Planning Department submitted a request to the Kalispell City Planning and Zoning Commission to consider certain amendments to the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance regarding allowing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) to be permitted
uses in the R-4, R-5, RA-1, RA-2, H-1, B-1, B-2, B-3, and B-4 Zoning Districts; and
WHEREAS, the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission considered the request by the Kalispell Planning Department, took public comment and evaluated the request pursuant to the guidelines of KMC 27.29.020; and
WHEREAS, the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission forwarded its recommendation to the Kalispell City Council that certain portions of text of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance as set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto, regarding the
allowance of ADUs in various zoning districts, be amended; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the Kalispell Planning Department Report as considered by the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission and the transmittal from
the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission and hereby adopts the
findings made in Report #KZTA-20-02, as the Findings of Fact applicable to this Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City of Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No. 1677, is hereby amended as follows on Exhibit “A”.
SECTION 2. All parts and portions of Ordinance No. 1677 not amended hereby remain unchanged. SECTION 3. 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 OF KALISPELL THIS 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021.
_____________________________________ Mark Johnson ATTEST: Mayor
_________________________________ Aimee Brunckhorst, CMC City Clerk
EXHIBIT A
CHAPTER 27.20 SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS 27.20.080: Principal Structures. In any “B”, “P”, or “I” district, more than one structure housing a permitted and customary principal use may be erected on a single lot or tract of land, provided that yard and other requirements of this code shall be met for each structure as though it were on an individual lot. This provision shall not apply to any lot within an
“R” district where only one principal structure is permitted, except as provided in
Section 27.20.082. Multiple structures proposed in an “RA” or “H” district shall be subject to approval as a conditional use, except as provided in Section 27.20.082.
27.20.082: Accessory Dwelling Units. In the R-4, R-5, RA-1, RA-2, H-1, B-1, B-2, B-3, and B-4 zones, two dwelling units are permitted on a single lot. The dwelling units may be
provided either as a duplex or as two separate single-family structures (i.e. a principal structure and an accessory dwelling unit) as a permitted use subject to the following conditions:
(1) An accessory dwelling unit shall meet the setbacks required for a principal
structure unless an existing conforming or non-conforming accessory structure is converted into the accessory dwelling unit. In that event, the existing setbacks may be maintained. Any enlargement or alteration of the structure shall be governed by Section 27.23.202(2) relating to changes to non-conforming
structures. (2) The limitation on repairs and maintenance for non-conforming structures contained in Section 27.23.020(3) shall not apply to a conversion of an existing
accessory structure to an accessory dwelling unit.
(3) One additional parking space is required for the accessory dwelling unit, however, in no case shall more parking be required than otherwise required
under Chapter 27.24 relating to off-street parking design standards.
(4) The maximum height is limited to a single story with a height of no more than 18 feet unless the setbacks for a principal structure are met, in which case the maximum building height for the district would apply.
(5) The accessory dwelling unit shall be limited to no more than 1000 square feet in size.
CHAPTER 27.23 NONCONFORMING LOTS, USES AND STRUCTURES 27.23.020: Nonconforming Structures. If a structure was lawfully constructed (conforming to
zoning regulations then in effect) prior to the effective date of adoption or amendment of this code and does not conform with the current standards of this code, the structure may remain as long as it remains otherwise lawful and subject to other conditions set forth herein.
(3) Repairs and Maintenance.
(a) On any nonconforming structure, work may be done on ordinary repairs,
maintenance, and remodeling to an extent not exceeding 25% of the replacement value of the building in any one year, except as provided for in Section 27.20.082 relating to accessory dwelling units. The repair or replacement of bearing walls and foundations is permitted.
CHAPTER 27.24 OFF-STREET PARKING DESIGN STANDARDS
27.24.050: Minimum Standards By Use.
Minimum Parking Standards By Use
Residential:
Single Family Residence (including townhouses): 2 spaces per unit. Duplex and Accessory Dwelling Unit: 1 space for the second unit (3 total for 2 units)
CHAPTER 27.37
DEFINITIONS 27.37.010 (60) Accessory Dwelling Unit – An accessory dwelling unit is a second dwelling unit on a property that is in a separate, detached structure from the first dwelling unit.
* All following subparagraphs to be renumbered accordingly.
Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of December 15, 2020 Page | 1
KALISPELL CITY PLANNING BOARD & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING December 15, 2020 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The regular meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission was called to order at 6:00 p.m. Board members present
were Chad Graham, Doug Kauffman, Kurt Vomfell, Rory Young, George Giavasis, Joshua Borgardt and Ronalee Skees via Zoom. PJ Sorensen and Jarod Nygren represented the Kalispell Planning
Department. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Vomfell moved and Kauffman seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the October 13, 2020 meeting of the Kalispell City Planning
Board and Zoning Commission. VOTE BY ACCLAMATION The motion passed unanimously on a vote of acclamation. HEAR THE PUBLIC None.
BOARD MEMBER SEATED Young recused himself from KCU-20-06, KZC-20-02 and KPP-20-04, he is a representative for the applicants. KZC-20-06 – NORTHWEST ENERGY CUP A request from Northwestern Energy for a conditional use permit to allow the expansion of an existing non-conforming use at 890 North Meridian Road. The property is in a B-1 (Neighborhood Business) zone, and utility storage yards with associated offices are not currently an allowed use within that zone. Expansions of up to a cumulative increase of 50% are allowed with a conditional use permit. The proposal would add approximately 5305 square feet to the existing 13,975 square foot building.
STAFF REPORT PJ Sorensen representing the Kalispell Planning Department reviewed Staff Report #KCU-20-06. Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt Staff Report # KCU-20-06 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the conditional use permit be approved subject to the conditions listed in the staff report.
BOARD DISCUSSION Vomfell asked what the existing non-conforming use is. Sorensen advised a utility storage yard. PUBLIC HEARING None.
MOTION Vomfell moved and Kauffman seconded a motion that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt Staff Report #KCU-20-06 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the conditional use permit be approved subject to the conditions listed in the
staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION None. ROLL CALL Motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote.
BOARD MEMBER SEATED Kauffman recused himself from KZC-20-02 & KPP-20-04, he is a
Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of December 15, 2020 Page | 2
representative for the applicant. KZC-20-02 AUTUMN CREEK ZONE CHANGE KPP-20-04 – AUTUMN CREEK PRELIMINARY PLAT
A request from JAG Capital Investments, LLC for a zone change from R-2 (Residential) to R-4 (Residential) and major preliminary plat approval for Autumn Creek subdivision, with a total of 28 residential lots/sublots on approximately 8.41 acres of land, including 1.14 acres of parkland and 1.89 acres of open space.
STAFF REPORT PJ Sorensen representing the Kalispell Planning Department reviewed
Staff Report # KZC-20-02 & #KPP-20-04. Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt Staff Report #KZC-20-02 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the subject property currently zoned R-2 (Residential) be rezoned to R-4 (Residential).
Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning
Commission adopt staff report #KPP-20-04 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the preliminary plat for Autumn Creek, including the variance request, be approved subject to
the conditions listed in the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION Board discussed condition #12 regarding the driveway that is not a part of the subject property and whether public comment has been received
from the owner of the property. Sorensen advised they had not. Giavasis inquired about future road stub outs as opposed to cul-de-sacs. Staff advised there is no logical place for future roads off the
subdivision. Skees asked staff to clarify condition #10 regarding the required upgrade with sidewalks, trees, etc. in front of the subject property in response to several public comments received via email. PUBLIC HEARING Doug Peppmeier with TDH Engineering, representative for the owner, offered to answer any questions the board had. Graham asked if they had
talked to the property owner of the driveway mentioned in condition #12. Peppmeier advised they had not but will as soon as they have an approved subdivision.
MOTION (KZC-20-02) Giavasis moved and Vomfell seconded a motion that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt Staff Report #KZC-20-02 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the subject property currently zoned R-2 (Residential) be rezoned to R-4 (Residential).
BOARD DISCUSSION None.
ROLL CALL Motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote.
MOTION (KPP-20-04) Vomfell moved and Borgardt seconded a motion that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt staff report #KPP-20-04 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the
preliminary plat for Autumn Creek, including the variance request, be approved subject to the conditions listed in the staff report.
Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of December 15, 2020 Page | 3
BOARD DISCUSSION Board discussed condition #12, they are concerned that the existing verbiage will prevent the developer from proceeding with the project if the property owner of the driveway does not want anything changed.
MOTION (AMEND CONDITION #12 OF KPP-20-04)
Vomfell moved and Skees seconded a motion to amend condition #12 to state: A driveway access off Summer Place shall be provided for the property to the north, which would be available for them to use if they so choose. BOARD DISCUSSION None. ROLL CALL (CONDITION #12) Motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. ROLL CALL (KPP-20-04 – ORIGINAL)
Motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote.
KZTA-20-02 – ADU’S A request from the City of Kalispell for a zoning text amendment addressing accessory dwelling units (“ADUs”), which are second dwelling units on a property. The proposed amendment would allow a
separate ADU as a permitted use on a lot in zones that allow duplexes (R-4, R-5, RA-1, RA-2, and H-1) in addition to those zones which already allow them.
STAFF REPORT PJ Sorensen representing the Kalispell Planning Department reviewed Staff Report #KZTA-20-02. Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board adopt the
findings in staff report KZTA-20-02 and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the proposed amendment be adopted as provided herein.
BOARD DISCUSSION Giavasis asked staff for clarification about the requirement of separate services on detached structures vs sharing on an attached structure. Staff advised it is a DEQ requirement and that we follow the state laws.
PUBLIC HEARING None. MOTION Vomfell moved and Giavasis seconded a motion that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt Staff Report #KZTA-20-02 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that
the proposed amendment be adopted as provided herein. BOARD DISCUSSION Board discussed their approval of the amendment. Graham, however, feels it is another vehicle to add density in a negative way and will
change the fabric in a lot of the neighborhoods. ROLL CALL Motion passed on a 6-1 roll call vote. Chad Graham is opposed to the text amendment.
OLD BUSINESS Nygren updated the board on the Pedestrian/Bike plan and Transportation Plan. NEW BUSINESS Nygren updated the board on the January 12th agenda and the status of the Historic Design Standards.
Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of December 15, 2020 Page | 4
ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:24pm.
/s/ Chad Graham /s/ Kari Barnhart Chad Graham Kari Barnhart
President Recording Secretary APPROVED as submitted/amended: 01/12/21
Page 1 of 8
CITY OF KALISPELL ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT STAFF REPORT #KZTA-20-02 KALISPELL PLANNING DEPARTMENT DECEMBER 2, 2020 This is a report to the Kalispell City Planning Board and the Kalispell City Council regarding a request for a text amendment to the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance addressing accessory dwelling units (“ADUs”), which are second dwelling units on a property. A public hearing has been scheduled before the Planning Board for December 15, 2020, beginning at 6:00 PM in the Kalispell City Council Chambers. The Planning Board will forward a recommendation to the Kalispell City Council for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION A: Applicant: City of Kalispell 201 First Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 B. Area Effected by the Proposed Changes: Any R-4, R-5, RA-1, RA-2, H-1, B-1, B-2, B-3, and B-4 zoned property within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Kalispell may be affected by the proposed changes. C. Proposed Amendment: The proposed amendment would allow a separate ADU as a permitted use on a lot in zones that allow duplexes (R-4, R-5, RA-1, RA-2, and H-1) in addition to those zones which already allow them. It would include design requirements which would require (1) that an ADU meet setback requirements for a house unless going into a grandfathered structure, such as a garage; (2) that parking for the second unit would be one required space, for a total of three parking spaces for the two units, as well as reducing the required parking for a duplex to the same number; (3) that the height is limited to single-story and 18 feet high unless it meets the setbacks for a principal structure; and (4) that the size is limited to no more than 1000 square feet. The full text of the proposed amendment is attached as Exhibit A. Deletions are struck-out and additions are underlined. D. Staff Discussion: At the City Council meeting on September 14, there was some interest expressed in allowing accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in the city. A Council work session was held on September 28 to discuss various options related to that issue, where they asked staff to take the matter to the Planning Board for input. The Planning Board held a work session to discuss the matter on November 10 and directed staff to proceed with the proposed text amendment. An ADU is a second dwelling unit on a property, typically in a separate structure such as a converted garage or a detached garage with a unit above. Sometimes they are called backyard cottages, granny flats, or mother-in-law apartments. The bottom line is that they
Page 2 of 8
are a second detached residential unit on the property. Although ADU’s have certain impacts (parking, traffic, congestion, increased demand for services, etc.), they also generally have several benefits including the following:
• Creates additional housing options for the city.
• Creates a secondary rental income for property owners.
• Increases the occupancy of a given plot of land.
• Creates more communal living, while still providing autonomy and privacy for both homes.
• People who may have once needed a large home–e.g. parents whose children have moved out–can move into the ADU and rent out the main home. The current zoning ordinance allows for that type of dwelling in several different zones in the city. Single-family and duplex residential zones (R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, and R-5) would not allow a separate dwelling unit on the same parcel, although a “guest house” is allowed with a CUP in the R-1 and duplexes (attached units/basement apartments) are allowed in the R-4 and R-5. In the RA-1, RA-2, H-1, B-1, B-2, B-3 and B-4 zones, two homes would be allowed on a single parcel, subject to a conditional use permit (“CUP”) in any RA or H zone. Additional homes beyond two would normally be reviewed as multi-family and would typically need a CUP. They would be subject to certain density limitations depending upon the zone. It is only the R-2 and R-3 zones, which are the primary single-family residential zones in the city, and industrial zones where a second unit would not be allowed in any case. Zoning maps are attached to this report showing (1) R-1, RA-1, RA-2, H-1, B-1, B-2, B-3, and B-4 zones, where ADUs are currently allowed; (2) R-4 and R-5 zones, where ADUs would be added under this proposal, and (3) R-2 and R-3 zones, where ADUs would not be allowed.
Zone Second Attached
Unit Allowed
Second Detached
Unit Allowed
Multiple Units
Allowed
R-1 (Residential) No Yes (guest house) No
R-2 (Residential) No No No
R-3 (Residential) No No No
R-4 (Residential) Yes No No
R-5(Residential/Professional Office) Yes No No
RA-1(Residential Apartment) Yes Yes (CUP) Yes (CUP)
RA-2(Residential Apartment/Office) Yes Yes (CUP) Yes (CUP)
H-1 (Health Care) Yes Yes (CUP) Yes (CUP)
B-1(Neighborhood Business) Yes Yes Yes (CUP)
B-2 (General Business) Yes Yes Yes (CUP)
B-3 (Core Area – Business) Yes Yes Yes
B-4 (Central Business) Yes Yes Yes (CUP)
B-5 (Industrial – Business) No No No
Page 3 of 8
I-1 (Light Industrial) No No No
I-2 (Heavy Industrial) No No No
P-1 (Public) No No No
Under current rules, if there is a second dwelling unit on the property, it is subject to all of the same rules as the first house. Setbacks, height, required parking, building codes, and any other city regulation would apply, including impact fees. Meeting those standards is not too difficult to design around with a vacant lot or empty back yards. They can be more difficult when there are garages in place. Adding an additional building can be problematic space-wise. Converting garages poses challenges as well. Garages are treated as accessory structures under zoning. Accessory structures are things such as sheds, greenhouses, carports, and detached garages that exist to serve the principal use on the property, usually a single-family residence. They have reduced setbacks, lower height limits, and are limited to single story construction. The different standards reflect a different scale and usage with those types of structures as opposed to a home. Converting a garage to a residential house can work under zoning, but typically has two main challenges. First, converting it to a house means it is no longer an accessory structure and the reduced setbacks would no longer apply, meaning that it can only be converted if it happens to meet the greater principal setbacks. Second, losing the parking spaces in the garage while increasing the parking need with a second dwelling unit means that additional parking needs to be found on-site. There are also building/fire/life safety codes to consider. A garage would likely not have been built to the same standards as a house, and there are safety concerns to address when adding a separate unit. While some upgrades are relatively simple, some can be difficult or expensive to complete. A second detached dwelling unit also raises issues related to how city water and sewer service would be provided. Depending upon the specific situation, a separate service line may be required which would necessitate connecting to the main within the street and/or alley. Impact fees would also need to be paid. At the City Council and Planning Board work sessions, there were a mix of opinions on ADUs, ranging from allowing them everywhere to restricting them to very limited areas. Taking the discussions as a whole, it seems that there is a willingness to consider ADUs as an option in some zones, but not all, and with certain design parameters. The proposed ordinance resulting from those discussions allows a separate ADU as a permitted use on a lot in zones that allow duplexes (R-4, R-5, RA-1, RA-2, and H-1) in addition to those zones which already allow them. Since these zones already allow for two or more units on a lot, the proposal does not increase allowable density. Instead, it allows a method to more efficiently utilize density that is already allowed. As for design requirements:
• It requires that an ADU meet setback requirements for a house unless going into a grandfathered structure, such as a garage.
Page 4 of 8
• Parking for the second unit would be one required space, for a total of three parking spaces for the two units. It also reduces the required parking for a duplex to the same number.
• Height is limited to single-story and 18 feet high unless it meets the setbacks for a principal structure.
• Size is limited to no more than 1000 square feet. EVALUATION BASED ON STATUTORY CRITERIA The statutory basis for reviewing a change in zoning is set forth by 76-2-303, M.C.A. Findings of Fact for the zone change request are discussed relative to the itemized criteria described by 76-2-304, M.C.A. 1. Is the zoning regulation made in accordance with the growth policy? The proposal is consistent with the growth policy. Chapter 3, Community Growth and Design, Goal 3 and Recommendation 4 encourages “housing types that provide housing for all sectors and income levels within the community,” which would include “infill housing where public services are available by allowing guest cottages, garage apartments and accessory dwellings when feasible.” Also, Chapter 4A, Land Use: Housing, Policy 14 states that “A variety of housing types and compatible land uses are encouraged in residential areas and should be designed to fit scale and character of the neighborhood.” Providing for a mix of housing options, including areas with ADUs, is consistent with the growth policy. Allowing for ADUs in only those zones which currently allow duplex uses and not in single-family based zones helps maintain an appropriate mix of housing types. 2. Does the zoning regulation consider the effect on motorized and nonmotorized transportation systems? The proposed amendment has a positive effect on transportation systems. By providing for more efficient use of existing allowed density, there is less stress on the existing transportation infrastructure by reducing travel distances. 3. Is the zoning regulation designed to secure safety from fire and other dangers? ADUs will be required to meet building, fire, and health codes. Building permit review and construction inspections will help reduce those dangers. 4. Is the zoning regulation designed to promote public health, public safety, and the general welfare? The general health, safety, and welfare of the public will be promoted by allowing for more options for affordable housing within the existing density limits in the city. The creation of an ADU is subject to a building permit, so building, fire and health codes would help promote public health, safety and welfare.
Page 5 of 8
5. Does the zoning regulation consider the reasonable provision of adequate light and air? The development standards within the zoning ordinance help provide for appropriate interaction between developed properties, including light and air. This proposal includes specific provisions for size, setbacks and height of an ADU in addition to general site development standards. 6. Is the zoning regulation designed to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, and other public requirements? The zoning ordinance creates a more predictable, orderly, and consistent development pattern. That pattern allows for a more efficient allocation of public resources and better provision of public services. More efficient utilization of currently allowable density helps to better facilitate the adequate provision of public services. 7. Does the zoning regulation consider the character of the district and its peculiar suitability for particular uses? The amendment reflects the character of the districts in which it would apply. It applies in zones that include duplexes (i.e. two-family) as a permitted use, so it does not change the general character of the zones as two-family-based residential zones. Furthermore, generally applicable property development standards such as setbacks, lot coverage, and height are maintained. 8. Does the zoning regulation consider conserving the value of buildings? Building values are conserved by providing reasonable standards within zoning districts and through development standards under city regulations including building and fire codes. 9. Does the zoning regulation encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the municipality and promote compatible urban growth? The amendment helps create consistency throughout comparable zones, which promotes compatible urban growth. It provides a method to more efficiently utilize density that is already allowed under existing city regulations. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board adopt the findings in staff report KZTA-20-02 and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the proposed amendment be adopted as provided herein.
Page 6 of 8
EXHIBIT A CHAPTER 27.20 SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS 27.20.080: Principal Structures. In any “B”, “P”, or “I” district, more than one structure housing a permitted and customary principal use may be erected on a single lot or tract of land, provided that yard and other requirements of this code shall be met for each structure as though it were on an individual lot. This provision shall not apply to any lot within an “R” district where only one principal structure is permitted, except as provided in Section 27.20.082. Multiple structures proposed in an “RA” or “H” district shall be subject to approval as a conditional use, except as provided in Section 27.20.082.
27.20.082: Accessory Dwelling Units. In the R-4, R-5, RA-1, RA-2, H-1, B-1, B-2, B-3, and B-4 zones, two dwelling units are permitted on a single lot. The dwelling units may be provided either as a duplex or as two separate single-family structures (i.e. a principal structure and an accessory dwelling unit) as a permitted use subject to the following conditions: (1) An accessory dwelling unit shall meet the setbacks required for a principal structure unless an existing conforming or non-conforming accessory structure is converted into the accessory dwelling unit. In that event, the existing setbacks may be maintained. Any enlargement or alteration of the structure shall be governed by Section 27.23.202(2) relating to changes to non-conforming structures. (2) The limitation on repairs and maintenance for non-conforming structures contained in Section 27.23.020(3) shall not apply to a conversion of an existing accessory structure to an accessory dwelling unit. (3) One additional parking space is required for the accessory dwelling unit, however, in no case shall more parking be required than otherwise required under Chapter 27.24 relating to off-street parking design standards. (4) The maximum height is limited to a single story with a height of no more than 18 feet unless the setbacks for a principal structure are met, in which case the maximum building height for the district would apply. (5) The accessory dwelling unit shall be limited to no more than 1000 square feet in size.
Page 7 of 8
CHAPTER 27.23 NONCONFORMING LOTS, USES AND STRUCTURES 27.23.020: Nonconforming Structures. If a structure was lawfully constructed (conforming to zoning regulations then in effect) prior to the effective date of adoption or amendment of this code and does not conform with the current standards of this code, the structure may remain as long as it remains otherwise lawful and subject to other conditions set forth herein. (1) 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. (2) Changes to Nonconforming Structures. A structure conforming with respect to use but nonconforming with respect to other standards may be enlarged or altered provided that the enlargement or alteration does not further deviate from these regulations. For example, an extension, whether horizontal along a property line or vertical with additional height, of a structure within a setback area creates a further deviation beyond the existing nonconformity. Enlargements or alterations of nonconforming structures up to 50% of the length and/or height of the existing nonconformity may be allowed subject to an administrative conditional use permit. (3) Repairs and Maintenance.
(a) On any nonconforming structure, work may be done on ordinary
repairs, maintenance, and remodeling to an extent not exceeding
25% of the replacement value of the building in any one year, except as provided for in Section 27.20.082 relating to accessory
dwelling units. The repair or replacement of bearing walls and
foundations is permitted.
(b) 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. Such work
may exceed 25% of the replacement value of the building in any one year.
Page 8 of 8
CHAPTER 27.24 OFF-STREET PARKING DESIGN STANDARDS 27.24.050: Minimum Standards By Use. Minimum Parking Standards By Use
Residential:
Single Family Residence (including townhouses), Accessory Single Family, and Duplex: 2 spaces per unit. Duplex and Accessory Dwelling Unit: 2 spaces for the first unit and 1 space for the second unit (3 total for 2 units) Multi-family: 1 space per efficiency unit and 1.5 spaces per units with one or more bedrooms. Bed and Breakfast: 2 spaces plus .5 per sleeping room. Rooming Houses and Dormitories: Minimum of 1 space per sleeping room (more may be required under the conditional use permit process). Shelters, Public and Private: 1 space per 5 occupants. Convalescent or Nursing Homes for Aged, Disable or Handicapped: 1 space per 8 beds plus 1 space per employee/maximum shift. Elderly Housing (projects qualifying under federal regulations) and Assisted Living Complexes: 1 space per 2 dwelling units.
B-3B-2
B-2
RA-1
B-4
RA-1
R-1
B-2
RA-1
RA-1
B-2
B-2
B-1
H-1
RA-2
RA-1
RA-1
RA-2
B-2
RA-1
RA
-
2
RA-1
RA-2
RA-2
RA-1
B-1
RA-1
RA-2
B-5
RA-1
R-1
RA-1
B-2
B-1
RA-1
B-1
B-
1
H-1
B-2
RA-1
B-2
B-2
B-1
RA-2
RA-1
RA-1
RA-1
B-2
R-1
B-2
RA-1 RA-1
B-1
RA-1
B-2
RA-1
B-2
RA-2
B-1
RA-1
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GISUser Community
Kalispell Zoning - October 2020R-1, RA-1, RA-2, H-1, B-1, B-2, B-3 & B-4
Date: Dec. 3rd, 2020FilePath: j\2020\1022 Kalispell Planning Dept.0 10.5 Miles
N
Commercial
Residential Apt / Office
Health Care
Light / Heavy Industrial
Neighborhood Business
Residential / Professional Office
Residential
Two Family Residential
Multi-family Residential
Public
Unzoned Right of Way
R-4 R-4
R-4
R-4
R-5
R-5
R-4
R-5
R-4
R-5
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GISUser Community
Kalispell Zoning - October 2020Zones where ADU's would be addedR-4 and R-5
Date: Oct. 22nd, 2020FilePath: j\2020\1022 Kalispell Planning Dept.0 10.5 Miles
N
Residential / Professional Office
Two Family Residential
R-4 R-4
R-4
R-4
R-5
R-5
R-4
R-5
R-4
R-5
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GISUser Community
Kalispell Zoning - October 2020 Zones where ADU's would not be allowedR-2 and R-3
Date: Oct. 22nd, 2020FilePath: j\2020\1022 Kalispell Planning Dept.0 10.5 Miles
N
R-2 & R-3
[EXTERNAL] Kalispell planning board ADU discussion - public comment
Ben Johnson <ben.johnson.mt@gmail.com>
Mon 11/30/2020 3:28 PM
To: Kari Barnhart <kbarnhart@kalispell.com>
Hello planning board members,
It's my understanding you will be discussing Kalispell zoning as it pertains to ADUs on December 15th.
While I'm not sure if I will be able to attend the meeting, I'd love to provide some public comment in
advance:
As a wage earner in Kalispell who is currently exploring options of purchasing a home for the first
time, the attractiveness of having an opportunity such as an ADU to ease the burden of a mortgage is
something I (as well as many peers in similar situations) am searching for in a property. The reality of
rapidly increasing home costs (far outpacing any increase in local wages) is that having the
opportunity to utilize or develop an ADU is the most viable way for me as a future homeowner to
offset the significant (and significantly increasing) burden of a mortgage.
I currently reside in an ADU (outside of city limits, North of Kalispell). It has been an opportunity for
me as a renter to live in an affordably-priced and autonomous unit while putting money away for a
down payment, while also supporting the mortgage payment of my friends and landlords, who have
an easier time making their monthly payment. It's a win-win situation - for both them as homeowners
and me as a tenant.
I see ADUs are a creative solution to ease the burdens on both renters and homeowners, while
reducing the negative impacts of sprawl with thoughtful in-fill.
I appreciate your consideration of creative ways to ease the cost of living in this community as we
tackle the challenges that come along with growth. I also appreciate the work you all do!
--------------------------------------
Ben Johnson
(406) 381-1794
lensofbenjohnson.com
To: The Kalispell City Council
From: Citizens for a Better Flathead
Re: Discussion of Accessory Dwelling Units
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment. In general we want to offer support of the
consideration of adding to some districts the option for accessory dwelling units with the
following conditions:
• Accessory dwellings should be considered a tool to encourage more affordable housing
within the city where close access to jobs and transportation alternatives help to reduce
the cost to renters. For this reason we would urge the city to include a policy that
would prevent these units or the main house on the lot from being rented as short-term
rentals.
• To ensure neighborhood compatibility we would encourage you to make accessory
dwelling units a CUP and not a permitted use. Given the diversity of lot layouts and
existing homes a CUP allows neighbors to address site specific issues that may need to
be mitigated in site specific conditions for approval. Examples I have seen with such
units proposed in Whitefish and elsewhere may include concerns with location of
windows or decks or lighting that impact the privacy of a neighboring residential unit,
impacts of where snow from an adjoining roof would likely impact an adjoining
property, impacts where the addition of another structure may result in significant
vegetation that impacts the character of the neighborhood, impacts that may impact
existing solar installations, and impacts to parking that are unique to that location or
neighborhood.
We look forward to following your development of this policy and to providing additional
comment as you proceed.
Sincerely, Mayre Flowers on behalf of CBF
FW: [EXTERNAL] R3 Zoning
Aimee Brunckhorst <abrunckhorst@kalispell.com>
Thu 12/3/2020 9:48 AM
To: Kari Barnhart <kbarnhart@kalispell.com>; Jarod Nygren <jnygren@kalispell.com>; PJ Sorensen <psorensen@kalispell.com>
Aimee Brunckhorst, CMC, APR
City Clerk & Communications Manager
City of Kalispell, Montana
Office: (406) 758-7756
Cell: (406) 223-1187
From: James Malone <jimmaloneusa@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2020 12:41 PM
To: Kalispell City Council <citycouncil@kalispell.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] R3 Zoning
11-31-2020
City Council
City of Kalispell
201 1st Ave. E/
Kalispell, MT 59901
Please consider my comments on making changes to the zoning of R3-Single Family
Residential in the area currently zoned R3, East of Highway 93, south of Center Street,
North of 14th Street and West of Woodland Ave.
This area is home to a large number of families that have lived in the area for a long
period of time and take pride in living in this residential area. Many of these homes date
back to the early 1920’s and ownership of homes in this area represents a large
investment of money, investments of improvements labor, and maintenance efforts to
us. We choose to live in this area of Kalispell as a safe neighborhood that is not in a
state of disrepair.
This zoning, R3 Single Family Residential, should be maintained without significant
modification. The proposed modification of permitted uses to allow multiple accessory
structures that can be used for residential occupation by renters will result in increased
occupancy density and lower levels of home maintenance and yard maintenance. The
overall long term effect will lower home monetary values, increase crime, and lower
“pride of ownership” The Kalispell City Council should not make modifications to
permitted usage under the guise of “Affordable Housing”. Actions by the “Council”
should not be at the expense of existing home owners such as myself that have chosen
to consider this a desirable area to spend my remaining years of retirement living in.
I am writing this from firsthand experience, having purchased and moved into the area
two years ago. Unknown to me at the time I purchased and moved into my home on 7th
Ave E. the house next door was owner/occupied with rooms being rented out to non
family adult men and women that had no stake in the home ownership or maintenance.
The men were extremely foul mouthed, continually yelling vulgar language, and
committed criminal acts of climbing over my fence and cutting telephone and internet
lines in the middle of the night. They also threw raw eggs at my house in the middle of
the night on several occasions including Christmas Eve. I reported these acts to the
Kalispell City Police and had them out to investigate many times. These non
owners/renters also knifed holes in the tires of my truck which was inside of a locked
garage costing me over $1000 to replace the new ruined tires. Unfortunately, since these
acts were committed quietly in the middle of the night we were never able to prove that
they were the persons responsible. The City police were not able to take any
enforcement actions because all acts were committed on private property. The City
Police were very courteous and attempted to help us but their hands were tied by not
having proof that would stand up in court. The City Police did assist us by installing a
video camera on the front of the garage in an attempt to gather proof of identity of the
person committing these criminal acts. Fortunately for us, the person owning the house
next door sold it and a nice couple moved in sending the “low life persons” down the
road where they are undoubtedly continuing their crimes. Some of my neighbors have
had similar problems.
The “Single Family Residence” concept and definition should be maintained and
strengthened to enforce the concept of Single Family occupancy. I wouldn’t wish on my
worst enemy the problems and issues I have endured during the period of room rental
next door.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss this zoning request with any and all City Council
Members.
Respectfully
James Malone
1211 7th Ave. E
Kalispell, Mt. 59901
September 28, 2020
PUBLIC COMMENT: KALISPELL CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
RE: ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS PROPOSAL
Dear Planning Board members;
As representative of the NW MT Association of Realtors (NMAR), I would like to express support for the
proposal to add Accessory Dwelling Units into the Kalispell Zoning Code in all of the
residential/commercial/mixed-use zones as a permitted use. Not only do backyard cottages or garage
apartments provide additional units of affordable housing into a community, they also provide a revenue stream
for the existing homeowner that might ease a financial burden allowing them to stay in their home.
Examples of wonderful social relationships that have developed between renters and homeowners are abundant.
Young college students can shovel sidewalks or help carry groceries for more elderly landlords. Babysitting or
childcare can be provided while a single mom runs out for an errand. In many cases, the landowner might move
to the smaller ADU and rent out the larger (main) house. Families can move their aging parents onto their
property perhaps delaying a move into an expensive assisted living facility.
The National Association of REALTORS (NAR) states that ADU’s are growing in popularity across the
country, but especially in Western cities. “It is an excellent way to provide affordable housing in increasingly
unaffordable neighborhoods…but the number of ADU’s being built is pitifully short of what is needed.”
To address the concerns that ADU’s may alter the fabric of existing neighborhoods, or that parking/traffic may
be an unpleasant side effect of in-fill housing, it is prudent to point out that Portland OR has the most ADUs of
any jurisdiction in the country, but it is only ONE percent of the housing supply. My point being that not every
homeowner decides to take advantage of having an ADU. National stats show that ADUs typically are an
under-utilized option.
AARP is making support for ADU’s a pillar of its plan to dramatically increase the supply of affordable housing
for seniors. AARP and the American Planning Association (APA) are joining forces to update an ADU report
they first released in 2000. AARP recognizes that by 2035 there will be more people over the age of 65 than
under the age of 18. Both organizations recognize that the trend is for more and more cities to open up their
code/regulations to allow ADU’s.
The median sales price for the City of Kalispell at the end of August was $365,500 and the average tax bill for a
$400,000 home is over $3500. There has to be some options for relief for our residents and ADU’s might be
that answer. Flathead County adopted ADU’s into their zoning code several years ago as a permitted use in
most all residential zones. There has been no way to track the number of units that may have been created but it
is important to note that there have been no complaints registered either.
Thank you for your consideration of my comments and should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
reach out to me.
Erica Wirtala, Public Affairs Director
NW MT Association of Realtors
ericaw@nmar.com 406/752-4313
FW: [EXTERNAL] ADUs
PJ Sorensen <psorensen@kalispell.com>
Tue 1/12/2021 11:38 AM
To: Kari Barnhart <kbarnhart@kalispell.com>
From: Aimee Brunckhorst <abrunckhorst@kalispell.com>
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 1:26 PM
To: Jarod Nygren <jnygren@kalispell.com>; PJ Sorensen <psorensen@kalispell.com>
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] ADUs
Aimee Brunckhorst, CMC, APR
City Clerk & Communications Manager
City of Kalispell, Montana
Office: (406) 758-7756
Cell: (406) 223-1187
From: jpress <jpress@centurytel.net>
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 9:52 AM
To: Kalispell Mee ngs Public Comment <publiccomment@kalispell.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] ADUs
We support ADUs, but feel it is critical to restrict their use to long term residency. There should be strict
requirements as to design, length of residency, and number of occupants. Very significant fines should
be in place if those requirements are not met. ADUs in other parts of the country have been used as
AirBnBs, VRBOSs, etc., which have
caused noise and parking problems for area residents, as well as a decline in property values.
Thank you.
Judith Pressmar
Lex Blood
Kalispell
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S9, an AT&T 5G Evolu on capable smartphone
FW: [EXTERNAL] Auxiliary living units.
Aimee Brunckhorst <abrunckhorst@kalispell.com>
Tue 1/19/2021 8:54 AM
To: Jarod Nygren <jnygren@kalispell.com>; PJ Sorensen <psorensen@kalispell.com>; Kari Barnhart <kbarnhart@kalispell.com>
From: Anthony Hirsch <bird72nw@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2021 11:50 AM
To: Kalispell Mee ngs Public Comment <publiccomment@kalispell.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Auxiliary living units.
I am in favor of the allowing ADU living units in Kalisell.
I have a house on 4th Ave EN. Complete basement apartment built (do not rent). It has egress window. Seperate
entrance. Bath and kitchen. I have 3 parking spaces. I will be surprised if this is approved to legally rent. I doubt
Kalispell will have the foresight to approve me doing so.
Anthony Hirsch
380 4th Ave EN
406 249 5666
FW: [EXTERNAL] Mother-in-law cottage allowances
Aimee Brunckhorst <abrunckhorst@kalispell.com>
Tue 1/19/2021 8:54 AM
To: Jarod Nygren <jnygren@kalispell.com>; PJ Sorensen <psorensen@kalispell.com>; Kari Barnhart <kbarnhart@kalispell.com>
From: Bonnie Wilson <bwilsonconsult@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2021 10:50 AM
To: Kalispell Mee ngs Public Comment <publiccomment@kalispell.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Mother-in-law co age allowances
I just thought I would add my personal experience. I took care of my mother during the
last 3.5 years of her life via a wonderful Assisted Living center...to the tune of $235,200
total over that time. If there could be some way to have her close to my home it would
have been wonderful. Now as we enter old age, I would love to have my son move up here
to take care of our needs if it comes to that. Having a mother-in-law place for him to stay
would sure help so much. The care my Mom got was great but at a great price!
Thank you for hearing my comment.
Bonnie Wilson
--
Bonnie Wilson
Accountant
BW Consul ng and Accoun ng Services
81 Great Bear Lane
Columbia Falls, MT 59912
406.885.3311
bwilsonconsult@gmail.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission may contain legally privileged, confidential information belonging to the sender. The
information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
disclosure, copying, distribution or taking any action based on the contents of this electronic mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronic
mail in error, please contact sender and delete all copies.
FW: [EXTERNAL] ADU Issue
Aimee Brunckhorst <abrunckhorst@kalispell.com>
Tue 1/19/2021 8:55 AM
To: Jarod Nygren <jnygren@kalispell.com>; PJ Sorensen <psorensen@kalispell.com>; Kari Barnhart <kbarnhart@kalispell.com>
From: Bre Morton <bre .morton@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2021 2:09 PM
To: Kalispell Mee ngs Public Comment <publiccomment@kalispell.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] ADU Issue
Dear City Council Members,
I'm wri ng to express my strong support in regards to the proposed ADU re-zoning...
As a lifelong resident of Kalispell I've seen much change come to the valley - most notably in regards to the lack of
affordable housing. While I can appreciate that Kalispell has become the de-facto landing spot for those looking
for affordable housing in the valley, I maintain that this growth should come, whenever possible, in a way that
maintains some degree of character and community; mass apartment complexes and tracts of new homes in a
subdivision devoid of character are not the answer, in my opinion.
As the owner of a small home at 538 3rd Ave. West my opinion is admi edly biased here, as we would love the
ability to build an ADU. With this said - biased or not - the reality for my family (and many others, I imagine) is
that with the ability to build an ADU we can remain living in town with space for storage and in-laws to stay. If this
is not an op on, with our first child on the way my wife and I will soon be forced to build outside town and rent
our current property.
I believe parking requirements (rela ve to the ADU size) would address any poten al parking issues which could
arise from the increased density of residents. Apart from this parking issue I have a hard me seeing how
expanded ADUs wouldn't benefit everyone from homeowners to the City to those looking for affordable housing.
Thanks for your considera on.
- Bre
FW: [EXTERNAL] Comment on ADU proposal
Aimee Brunckhorst <abrunckhorst@kalispell.com>
Tue 1/19/2021 8:55 AM
To: Jarod Nygren <jnygren@kalispell.com>; PJ Sorensen <psorensen@kalispell.com>; Kari Barnhart <kbarnhart@kalispell.com>
From: CHH <catherine@danielcloud.com>
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2021 6:31 PM
To: Kalispell Mee ngs Public Comment <publiccomment@kalispell.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comment on ADU proposal
As a local business and property owner, as well as a downtown resident, I have passionate opinions
about the proposed ADU regulations. I own an apartment building in downtown Kalispell that has 47
units and houses a combined 54 people. My tenants pay between $150 and $800 a month for their
units. Legislation allowing more units of efficient and low-cost housing into the marketplace will certainly
hurt my business. That said, I am completely in favor of allowing ADUs. Not only is it the right thing to
do, but it will have a positive economic impact writ grand that raises all boats here, even if it has short
term negative consequences for me.
Why is allowing ADUs an important step? I see three main reasons.
1. We need more small and efficient housing. Kalispell has a housing crisis unlike any other region I
have ever experienced, and we have hard-working people with jobs who cannot find a place to live.
One of our regions’s largest employers, TTec, estimates that 10% of their workforce is homeless.
Among the housed employees, many are living inadequately in temporary arrangements, and in
locations as far away as Polson or Eureka. These people are earning $17/hour. They can afford an
apartment. They just can’t find one.
2. We need to get over the fad of 1950s style suburban tract housing as the only solution to housing
needs. The people who built much of the central city’s housing stock were building a community made
up of walkable neighborhoods. Allowing modern Kalispell residents who share those same Montana
community values, to further increase and conserve the value of an existing resource makes sense.
Gobbling up more open space to build housing that is out of the financial reach of our working
population doesn't meet our community's needs and is not a conservative choice. We can and should
learn from the mistakes of Aspen, Jackson Hole, and Whitefish.
3. Because some ADUs are already grandfathered, but new ones are not, the existing situation is unfair.
Some Kalispell residents are making an astonishing second income, especially in the summer months,
by charging an average of $217/night for studio-type units above their garage. Through an accident of
regulation, their neighbors cannot enjoy the same privilege. I do not see how this is fair or correlates to
Montana’s fair market principles.
I am completely in favor of allowing ADUs in our community and cannot wait to see the positive
economic impact of this fair decision on our working population and also on our property owners.
Sincerely,
Catherine Potter
--
c a t h e r i n e
FW: [EXTERNAL] Mother in Law Units
Aimee Brunckhorst <abrunckhorst@kalispell.com>
Tue 1/19/2021 8:55 AM
To: Jarod Nygren <jnygren@kalispell.com>; PJ Sorensen <psorensen@kalispell.com>; Kari Barnhart <kbarnhart@kalispell.com>
From: Martha Artyomenko <martha@lclink.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2021 4:36 PM
To: Kalispell Mee ngs Public Comment <publiccomment@kalispell.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Mother in Law Units
As a property Manager I have seen as has most people, seen the housing crisis in our community. I personally in
near downtown Kalispell and walk the neighborhoods. In many places it is not zoned to allow in law suites, yet
this could really help the community, not only with the rental/housing shortage, but also with increasing income
for the home owners, benefi ng the city with the taxes, and other increased values.
I know a family member that had steady income, was single, no pets, no smoking, good credit scores, but
because they needed three mes his income, and he had to pay child support ended up looking for two years for
a small, basic place that met his income limits and he made a decent income. We had thought about a in law suite
for this person, but knew it would be hard to get it permi ed.
I understand the concerns with parking, short term rental situa ons and neighborhood disrup on, so perhaps
with the zoning, just make sure they follow the STR guidelines as well.
I would hope that the zoning department will allow this as I believe it can help with even family members looking
for housing to offer a quality separate living situa on or rental.
Martha Artyomenko
Licensed Property Manager
Artyomenko Reliable Rentals LLC
FW: [EXTERNAL] ADU's
Aimee Brunckhorst <abrunckhorst@kalispell.com>
Tue 1/19/2021 8:55 AM
To: Jarod Nygren <jnygren@kalispell.com>; PJ Sorensen <psorensen@kalispell.com>; Kari Barnhart <kbarnhart@kalispell.com>
From: Ma hew <mbrakemt@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2021 10:10 PM
To: Kalispell Mee ngs Public Comment <publiccomment@kalispell.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] ADU's
Hello Mayor Johnson and City Council,
I live at 729 6th Ave West, Kalispell, MT which is zoned R-4. I u lized a first me homebuyer program to purchase
my home back in 2004. Today I make a bit, but not a whole lot more and find myself with re rement on the visible
horizon. Sixteen years later my major asset is my home.
A few years ago I inves gated building an ADU on my property. I knew I was zoned mul -family and that duplexes
were OK. I was quite surprised to learn that ADU's were not allowed. I was informed that the only op on for my
mul family zoned property was to add onto my exis ng home and duplex it. Or, if I wanted I could raze my
exis ng home en rely and fully build out my exis ng lot with a massive, out of character, 3/2 duplex with garages
for both units, and then sell the property and make a really nice profit. But...
Neither of these is right for me, my property, or for my neighbors who both own modest single family homes with
garages out back.
MY dream is to build a though ul, small home for myself on the back half of my 0.18 acres. I will need some
rental income from the main home to make ends meet in the coming years.
ADU's will help my neighborhood retain its character while suppor ng the mutual goals of the City of Kalispell
and property owners.
This is my dream. Thank you for listening. I encourage you to vote to allow for ADU's as proposed.
Thank you,
Ma hew H. Brake
mbrakemt@gmail.com
406-250-5958
FW: [EXTERNAL] Adu in kalispell
Aimee Brunckhorst <abrunckhorst@kalispell.com>
Tue 1/19/2021 8:53 AM
To: Jarod Nygren <jnygren@kalispell.com>; PJ Sorensen <psorensen@kalispell.com>; Kari Barnhart <kbarnhart@kalispell.com>
From: Becky Schaer <rschaer626@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2021 10:13 AM
To: Kalispell Mee ngs Public Comment <publiccomment@kalispell.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Adu in kalispell
Density ( services and parking) is men oned as a concern. And lack of pride of ownership.
1. With The influx of people means you have more density no ma er what. This op on of adu within kalispell city
limits merely gives op ons for where some of these people moving into the area can go. Many come to the
flathead area bc of family or friends.
2. I totally agree w having the adu s with Few if any restric ons.
3. Property values are Not dropping with all these people moving here thus driving up prices. The idea that
property prices are going to drop is rather ridiculous.
3. The idea that there won't be pride of ownership is also a fallacy. The people who don't take pride now are the
same ones who won't take pride later. The places that are decently kept up now will be decently kept up w an
adu on the property. It is a slam to say you won't keep up your property if we allow you to have an adu on your
property ! If it bothers the city council that much , go take a drive and see how the owner keeps the lot up
currently. If it is basically respectable then allow it. Another thing... good tenants or respect for ones parent(s)
either one , necessitate a decent place to live including upkeep of the property that the adu sits on. Therefore
again there would be an incen ve to make and keep your place nice. No one wants lousy tenants.
4. Services. Where are all these people going to if they want city services ? Builders can only build so fast but
more importantly if you don't want houses ea ng up the en re flathead area that is close to kalispell and
whitefish then this op on allows for exis ng ground to absorb more of these 1 and 2 person family units moving
into the area without requiring a whole new infrastructure. Instead it would be u lizing exis ng infrastructure.
You can't stop the influx of people and they have to go somewhere. And housing/ LAND is ge ng Very expensive.
(Not new news to the council. )
5. the gov. ie the city council needs to back off and let good people who take care of their property make the
decision as to what they should be able to do w their property. Gov does NOT know what is best. They only think
that they do. There are people that don't keep their places up , that is true, but by and large people do. And no
one who cares about their place is going to let a tenant make their property be run down without stepping in and
resolving it. The City council needs to trust people so that they are be er able to provide income for their
property as they so choose. Not everyone will !! Many hate dealing w tenants ! But they would like to have an
affordable smaller place for house guests , parent(s) , family member to live.
Addi onally for those that do this it could help supplement their income. And as far as property taxes That
income could also mean keeping their property as neither the city nor the state it would seem, have any
problems w raising property taxes every 2 yrs and what is or has already inevitably resulted in folks not being able
to afford to keep their place.
On a side note -
The city and state need to pass a law that restricts how much taxes can go up in a 10 yr period and also for the
me that the same person owns their home. Right now the taxes are a free for all for the state. It is ridiculous.
Allowing adu on proper es for those that choose to build one, it could help offset the property tax insanity that
has been happening in the past 4 to 6 yrs and what is con nuing to escalate in an excessive manner.
Lastly on another side note this whole thing also applies to single wide mobile homes. The idea that they bring
down property values as well as poten ally the adu's is also ridiculous. there are a lot of super nice single wides
and this too is a far more affordable housing op on than building a s ck-built house and the city and county need
to allow many more lots to have these placed on lots. And if it is required that they be 1990 and newer they
would have a pitched roof .
Affordable Housing is a Major Major problem in this county and both allowing adu and sw mobile homes ( even
though this discussion isn't about mobile homes ) would both greatly assist w this problem.
Thank you for your me. I sure hope that that these things are given equal me and thought and not just
ignored.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Kingman.