The URL can be used to link to this page

H2. Ord. 1861, ADU Text AmendmentKALisPEii. Development Services Department 201 1st Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 758-7940 Fax: (406) 758-7739 www.kalispell.com/plannine REPORT TO: Doug Russell, City Manager FROM: PJ Sorensen, Senior Planner SUBJECT: KZTA-20-02 — Zoning Text Amendment — Accessory Dwelling Units MEETING DATE: July 19, 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 directed staff to proceed with the proposed text amendment. The Kalispell Planning Board held a duly noticed public hearing on December 15, 2020, to consider the request. Staff presented staff report KZTA-20-02 providing details of the proposal and evaluation. Staff recommended that the Planning Board adopt the staff report as findings of fact and recommend to the Council that the request be granted. No public comments were received at the hearing, although several written comments were submitted to the Board prior to the hearing. The public hearing was closed, and a motion was presented to adopt staff report KZTA-20-02 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the zoning text amendment be approved. Board discussion concluded that the request was appropriate, and the motion was approved on a 6-1 vote. Subsequent to the Planning Board meeting, the City Council discussed the matter at a work session on January 11. The matter was considered at the regular City Council meetings on January 19, February 1, and February 16, but did not proceed to a final vote on second reading. The City Council held additional work sessions on June 14 and 28. Additional public comment was submitted throughout that time. Staff is now bringing the proposal forward for formal consideration. Based on that discussion, the staff report and proposed ordinance were updated to reflect (a) including a new administrative conditional use permit requirement for the R-4 and R-5 zones; (b) aligning the RA-1, RA-2, and H-1 zones with the R-4 and R-5 by requiring an administrative CUP rather than a full CUP; (c) keeping parking requirements at 2 per unit as they are currently; and (d) clarifying that the gross floor area of living space would be limited to 1000 square feet. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Kalispell City Council approve the first reading of Ordinance 1861, an ordinance to amend Sections 27.20.080, 27.23.020, and 27.37.010 of the City of Kalispell Zoning Ordinance 1677, and adding a new Section 27.20.082, by adding provisions for accessory dwelling units within certain zones. FISCAL EFFECTS: There are no anticipated fiscal impacts at this time. ALTERNATIVES: Deny the request. ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance 1861 December 15, 2020, Kalispell Planning Board Minutes Amended Staff Report/Maps Public Comments Aimee Brunckhorst, Kalispell City Clerk ORDINANCE NO. 1861 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 DAY OF 2021. ATTEST: Aimee Brunckhorst, CMC City Clerk Mark Johnson Mayor 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 e, xcept 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 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). In the R-4, R-5, RA-1, RA-2, and H-1 zones, two dwelling units are permitted on a single lot in a duplex, or as two separate single-family structures with an administrative conditional use permit. In the R-1 zone, a guest house is permitted with a conditional use permit. In any zones listed in this subsection, an accessory dwelling unit would only be allowed subject to the following conditions: (a) The maximum height is limited to a single story with a height of no more than 18 feet unless the setbacks for a brincibal structure are met. in which case the maximum building height for the district would apply. (b) The gross floor area of living, space within the accessory dwelling unit shall be limited to no more than 1000 square feet. fD For any accessory dwelling unit under this section: (a) 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. (b) 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. CHAPTER 27.23 NONCONFORNIING 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 27.37 DEFINITIONS Sections: 27.37.010: Definitions. All words in this ordinance shall be first defined as provided herein and, if not defined herein, shall have their customary dictionary definitions. For the purposes of this ordinance certain words and terms used herein are defined as follows: (61) Dwelling Unit, Accessory. An accessory dwelling unit is a second dwelling unit on a property that is in a separate, detached structure from the first dwelling unit. KALISPELL CITY PLANNING BOARD & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING December 15, 2020 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL The regular meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning CALL 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 Ronaiee 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 A request from Northwestern Energy for a conditional use pen -nit to ENERGY CUP 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 pen -nit. 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-confonning 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 4KCU-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. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of December 15, 2020 Pagel BOARD MEMBER SEATED Kauffman recused himself from KZC-20-02 & KPP-20-04, he is a representative for the applicant. KZC-20-02 AUTUMN CREEK A request from JAG Capital Investments, LLC for a zone change from ZONE CHANGE R-2 (Residential) to R-4 (Residential) and major preliminary plat KPP-20-04 — AUTUMN CREEK approval for Autumn Creek subdivision, with a total of 28 residential PRELIMINARY PLAT 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 Conunission 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 412 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 410 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 Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of December 15, 2020 Page12 approved subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. 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 Vomfell moved and Skees seconded a motion to amend condition #12 to #12 OF KPP-20-04) state: A driveway access off Summer Place small 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 — Motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. ORIGINAL) 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. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of December 15, 2020 Page 13 NEW BUSINESS Nygren updated the board on the January 12"' agenda and the status of the Historic Design Standards. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:24pm. r � Chad am President i APPROVED as submitted/amended: Kari Barnhart Recording Secretary Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of December 15, 2020 Page l4 CITY OF KALISPELL ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT AMENDED 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 wed use allowed with an administrative conditional use permit 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 as a permitted use. 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 p.,,-' 4ag for the se „d , „it would be one o rod (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 Page 1 of 7 backyard cottages, granny flats, or mother-in-law apartments. The bottom line is that they 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 Page 2 of 7 B-5 Industrial — Business No No No 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 3 of 7 • • 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. 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 zoniniz regulation designed to bromote bublic health_ bublic safety and the seneral 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 Page 4 of 7 would help promote public health, safety and welfare. 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 suitabili . 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 5 of 7 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 e, xcept as provided in Section 27.20.082. 27.20.082: Accessory Dwelling Units. In the 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). In the R-4, R-5, RA-1, RA-2, and H-1 zones, two dwelling units are permitted on a single lot in a duplex, or as two separate single-family_ structures with an administrative conditional use permit. In the R-1 zone, a guest house is permitted with a conditional use permit. In any zones listed in this subsection, an accessory dwelling unit would only be allowed subject to the following conditions: (a) The maximum height is limited to a single story with a height of no more than 18 feet unless the setbacks for a brincibal structure are met. in which case the maximum building height for the district would apply. (b) The gross floor area of living space within the accessory dwelling unit shall be limited to no more than 1000 square feet. For any accessory dwelling unit under this section: (a) 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. Page 6 of 7 (b) 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. CHAPTER 27.23 NONCONFORNIING 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 27.37 DEFINITIONS Sections: 27.37.010: Definitions. All words in this ordinance shall be first defined as provided herein and, if not defined herein, shall have their customary dictionary definitions. For the purposes of this ordinance certain words and terms used herein are defined as follows: (61) Dwelling Unit, Accessory. An accessory dwelling unit is a second dwelling unit on a property that is in a separate, detached structure from the first dwelling unit. Page 7 of 7 [EXTERNAL] Kalispell planninq board ADU discussion - public comment Ben Johnson <benjohnson.mt@gmail.com> Mon 11/30/2020 3:28 PM To: Kari Barnhart <kbarnhart@kalispell.com> neiiu Nicummy uuaiu 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 lensofbeniohnson.com G[ccns fur a Rct r Flathra,l PO N,x 2198 Kalispell, MT 5990 406.756.6993 siwwlla[headCitizenwrg 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 8v 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 1 st 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. 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 A,"] NOpTNWEST MONTANA REALTOR5 September 28, 2020 PUBLIC COMMENT: KALISPELL CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION RE: ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS PROPOSAL Dear Planning Board members; nmar.com 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 residentiaUcommerciaUmixed--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. Northwest Montana Association of ReaLtors' 110 Cooperative Way • Kalispell, MT 59901 • P: 406.752.4313 • MLS: 406,752,4197 • F: 406,752,7834 A,"-) NOpTNWEST MONTANA REALTOR5 nmar.com 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 ericawknmar.com 406/752-4313 Northwest Montana Association of ReaLtors' 110 Cooperative Way • Kalispell, MT 59901 • P: 406.752.4313 • MLS: 406,752,4197 • F: 406,752,7834 FW: [EXTERNAL] ADUs PJ Sorensen <psorensen@kalispeII.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 8v 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 Meetings 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 Evolution capable smartphone FW: [EXTERNAL] Auxiliary livina 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 Meetings 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 Meetings Public Comment <publiccomment@kalispell.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Mother-in-law cottage 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 Consulting and Accounting Services 81 Great Bear Lane Columbia Falls, MT 5991.- 406.885.3311 bwilsonconsul tgmail. 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: Brett Morton <brett.morton@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2021 2:09 PM To: Kalispell Meetings Public Comment <publiccomment@kalispell.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] ADU Issue Dear City Council Members, I'm writing 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 admittedly 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 option, 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 (relative to the ADU size) would address any potential parking issues which could arise from the increased density of residents. Apart from this parking issue I have a hard time seeing how expanded ADUs wouldn't benefit everyone from homeowners to the City to those looking for affordable housing. Thanks for your consideration. - Brett FW: [EXTERNAL] Comment on ADU proposal Aimee Brunckhorst <abrunckhorst@kalispeII.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 Meetings 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 Meetings 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, benefiting 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 times 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 permitted. I understand the concerns with parking, short term rental situations and neighborhood disruption, so perhaps with the zoning, just make sure they follow the STIR 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 situation or rental. Martha Artyomenko Licensed Property Manager Artyomenko Reliable Rentals LLC FW: [EXTERNAL] ADU's Aimee Brunckhorst <abrunckhorst@kalispeII.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: Matthew <mbrakemt@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2021 10:10 PM To: Kalispell Meetings 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 utilized a first time homebuyer program to purchase my home back in 2004. Today I make a bit, but not a whole lot more and find myself with retirement on the visible horizon. Sixteen years later my major asset is my home. A few years ago I investigated building an ADU on my property. I knew I was zoned multi -family and that duplexes were OK. I was quite surprised to learn that ADU's were not allowed. I was informed that the only option for my multi family zoned property was to add onto my existing home and duplex it. Or, if I wanted I could raze my existing home entirely and fully build out my existing 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 thoughtful, 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 supporting 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, Matthew 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 Meetings Public Comment <publiccomment@kalispell.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Adu in kalispell Density ( services and parking) is mentioned as a concern. And lack of pride of ownership. 1. With The influx of people means you have more density no matter what. This option of adu within kalispell city limits merely gives options for where some of these people moving into the area can go. Many come to the flathead area be of family or friends. 2. 1 totally agree w having the adu s with Few if any restrictions. 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 incentive 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 eating up the entire flathead area that is close to kalispell and whitefish then this option allows for existing 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 utilizing existing infrastructure. You can't stop the influx of people and they have to go somewhere. And housing/ LAND is getting 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 better 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. Additionally 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 time 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 properties 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 continuing 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 potentially the adu's is also ridiculous. there are a lot of super nice single wides and this too is a far more affordable housing option than building a stick -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 time. I sure hope that that these things are given equal time and thought and not just ignored. Sincerely, Rebecca Kingman. Kari Barnhart From: Aimee Brunckhorst Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 9:39 AM To: Jarod Nygren; PJ Sorensen; Kari Barnhart Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] ADUs From: Jane Latus Emmert <janelatusemmert@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 9:24 AM To: Kalispell Meetings Public Comment <publiccomment@kalispell.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] ADUs Dear Mayor and Council Members, As the Director of a nonprofit that helps low income individuals in the Flathead Valley I am a proponent for Accessory Dwelling Units because I believe that it allows residents to help combat the higher rents charged by apartment complexes and provide more affordable housing. I also believe that it gives retirees an opportunity for a secondary income to allow them to remain in their homes. Please vote yes for ADUs. Sincerely, Jane Latus Emmert 246 Cougar Tr Whitefish MT Sent from my iPhone Kari Barnhart From: Aimee Brunckhorst Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 9:58 AM To: Jarod Nygren; PJ Sorensen; Kari Barnhart Subject: Public Comment FW: [EXTERNAL] From: Lee Artyomenko <leeartllko@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 18, 2021 2:08 PM To: Kalispell Meetings Public Comment <publiccomment@kalispell.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Hello this is lee artyomenko I am a citizen of Kalispell please consider permitting mother in law units in Kalispell thank you Kari Barnhart From: Aimee Brunckhorst Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 11:47 AM To: Jarod Nygren; PJ Sorensen; Kari Barnhart Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Public Testimony -- Ordinance 1853 From: Lorraine Clarno <I.clarno@kalispellchamber.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 11:40 AM To: Kalispell Meetings Public Comment <publiccomment@kalispell.com> Cc: Tom Ray (trayliv58@gmail.com) <trayliv58@gmail.com>;'Courtenay Sprunger' <courtenay@bigskypublicrelations.com>; Erica Wirtala <ericaw@nmar.com>; Tagen Vine <tvine@krmc.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Testimony - Ordinance 1853 Good evening Mayor and City Councilors — The Kalispell Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors recently completed their 2021 planning and set priorities for the year. Economic development and workforce development are directly impacted by housing availability. As Kalispell continues to grow, it is apparent that housing is becoming a significant challenge and issue for both individuals already here and becoming a larger issue for employers expanding their workforce and needing to recruit more employees to the area. The affordable and workforce housing shortage has emerged as a primary barrier to creating and growing jobs here in the Flathead. Recently our regional health care center's Human Resource department shared that in one day, 6 out-of-state recruits declined high demand positions and sighted the lack of housing and affordability as the primary factor in their decisions. We believe that Accessory Dwelling Units can be a part of the solution to our housing shortage. They will not only increase the available inventory for people in need of housing, but they will also provide supplemental income for property owners that may be experiencing hardships during this challenging economic time. We also want to stress the need for Council's inclusion in the ordinance that the ADUs affected here in shall be for long-term rentals so as not to increase the supply of short-term visitor rentals such as Airbnbs and VRBOs. The Kalispell Chamber of Commerce applauds and supports the City's efforts to find unique solutions to our housing crisis. Thank you for the opportunity to provide written testimony this evening. Lorraine Clarno, President and CEO Kalispell Chamber of Commerce Convention & Visitor Bureau 15 Depot Park I Kalispell, MT 59901 (P) 406-758-2802 (C) 406-407-4144 I .clarno(a)kalispellchamber.com (u7LorraineClarno tanwrc�n �E Yr�.la 8art�4 Kari Barnhart From: Aimee Brunckhorst Sent: Monday, January 25, 2021 8:52 AM To: Jarod Nygren; PJ Sorensen; Kari Barnhart; Chad Fincher Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] ADU's -----Original Message ----- From: susan stricker <strickerfam68@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 25, 2021 8:43 AM To: Kalispell Meetings Public Comment <publiccomment@kalispell.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] ADU's I am writing to express my disappointment in the new ADU laws. I have properties in the R3 zones, different parts of the town, yet I am not allowed to use for additional dwelling. I pay taxes on these properties just like those property owners in other zones so why are we not allowed the same rights? I really feel this is unfair. Another point I'd like to address is regarding Northridge Park. When I bought my property we had a lovely tennis and basketball court. They have been left in complete disrepair and no longer useable. Yet the city continues to allow new housing developments with new parks that they upkeep. Why should you allow this area to be left to complete neglect when I pay such high taxes? I look forward to a response on these issues. Thank you Susan Stricker Sent from my iPhone Kari Barnhart From: Aimee Brunckhorst Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 11:59 AM To: Jarod Nygren; PJ Sorensen; Kari Barnhart; Rachel Ezell Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] ADU approval for Kalispell From: Xena Benedetto <xenabenedetto@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 7:03 PM To: Kalispell Meetings Public Comment <publiccomment@kalispell.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] ADU approval for Kalispell Hello I wanted to give my input on the downtown area of Kalispell. What is attractive about the downtown area is its beauty and his historic charm. The majestic trees and the historic Victorian homes mixed on among the antique buildings on Main Street really are a sight to behold. I own several properties downtown with large lots but have refrained from from adding a second unit because the city will not permit me to add a detached Cottage or guest house. Zoning only allows for attached units. I feel that this would deteriorate the value and the beauty of the neighborhood because it would resemble an apartment community and these gorgeous homes would lose their character. I like the idea to allow a smaller detached Cottage or cabin to be built on to the existing large Lots in downtown Kalispell not only to maintain the aesthetic integrity of the era these homes were built in but also to provide much -needed housing for people who were born and raised here that are being displaced. Xena Benedetto, Real Estate Broker 406-300-8480 Kari Barnhart From: Aimee Brunckhorst Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 9:10 AM To: Jarod Nygren; PJ Sorensen; Kari Barnhart Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Re: New Agenda 02-16-21 for www.kalispell.com From: Patrick Copeland -Malone <pcmwccc@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2021 6:49 PM To: City Council Agenda <listserv@civicplus.com>; publiccomment@kalispell.gov; Doug Russell <drussell@kalispell.com>; Kalispell City Council <citycouncil@kalispell.com>; Mark Johnson <mjohnson@kalispell.com> Cc: Patrick Copeland -Malone <pcmwccc@hotmail.com>; Tracy Diaz <tdiaz@capnwmt.org>; Cassidy Kipp <ckipp@capnwmt.org>; Barrett,Chance <Chance.Barrett@edwardjones.com>; Jamie Quinn <jamie@flatheadfoodbank.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: New Agenda 02-16-21 for www.kalispell.com Dear Mayor Johnson and Kalispell City Council Members. RE: Accessory Dwelling Units — Ordinance 1853 I am writing in support of this proposed Ordinance and the concept of Accessory Dwelling Units with the following exceptions: That they be limited to long-term rental and not short-term (less than 30 days), That they be permitted in all residential districts (including R-2 and R-3 zones, in addition to the other districts already referenced or permitting them), That conditional use application requirements only applied only to "highly sensitive" districts, perhaps like R-2 and R-3, as well as historic districts and maybe business districts. Some less formal and less costly administrative staff review option should be considered for residential zones that are specifically intended to allow residential habitation. The CUP process is lengthy and costly for most homeowners and especially if their elderly or disabled and only desire to supplement their fixed income or have on - site supportive services. 4. That the size of an ADU be limited to a percentage of the primary dwelling unit square footage and be compliant with all other zoning standards (say a 30% bonus). That would mean a 1,500 sqft home could add 450 sqft; a 2,500 sqft home 750 sqft; and a 3,500 sqft home 1,050 sqft, etc. Allowing an ADU of up to 1,000 sqft without any regard for the size of the primary residence — which is likely in character with neighboring homes — creates not only aesthetic but functional problems. A 1,000 sqft structure could easily be 3-bedrooms creating overcrowding, noise and parking problems and be inconsistent with that least some of your desired outcomes and put the larger concept in jeopardy (and I don't see anywhere staff being given authority and/or discretion to limit ADU size). The cost of housing in Kalispell, the Flathead and throughout most tourist -oriented areas in Montana (and the nation) has and will likely to continue to far outpace wage increases creating a worsening housing affordability gap for low - wage, seasonal, part-time residents. ADUs are one part of a larger comprehensive affordable housing initiative that many cities have undertaken with great results. As a retired professional and consulting urban planner, residential housing rehab developer and property manager I've seen and witnessed first-hand the best of what well planned and designed ADUs can do. Over the past several months our family has spent time in other tourist oriented small towns like McCall (ID), Sun Valley (ID), Park City (UT), Eden (UT), Midway (UT), and Chelan (WA). Each of these community's struggle with general affordability and workforce housing issues. Prices have skyrocketed in recent decades forcing again lower -wage local residents to commute far distances or move away (often times leaving large employment gaps for local employers). In the local media in nearly all of these towns we read or heard stories about housing affordability problems — especially in Sun Valley and the greater Salt Lake City metro area. In fact, the Weber County Commissioners were debating the issue during our visit in mid -December. A news article from the Odgen (UT) based Standard -Examiner states in part "(r)ecent data from the University of Utah's Kern C. Gardner Policy Institute showed the median housing costs for renters in Utah rose from $944 to $1,037 in 2020.... The Gardner Institute study cited a recent survey from the University of California at Berkeley, which indicated that accessory dwelling units typically rent for an average of 58% below market value, making them 'an essential tool for delivering affordable units to the market." One observation I'll share from the Editorial Board of the Idaho Mountain Express concerning a current workforce housing initiative in Hailey Idaho is a concern that if only housing supply is increased with no measures to slow or control housing prices, the pressures of speculation will simply push even new construction and ADUs beyond what many local residents can afford. These conservative business people were advocating for rent control or forms of deed -restricted development. An important consideration/element to a comprehensive and long-term approach. Your efforts are timely and need to be promoted throughout Flathead County, with appropriate safeguards, to ensure that young families and essential lower -wage earners (seasonal, part-time or retirees) can continue to afford safe and decent housing. Sincerely, Patrick Malone (Columbia Falls; former Kalispell resident) From: City Council Agenda <listserv@civicplus.com> Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2021 9:54 AM To: pcmwccc@hotmail.com <pcmwccc@hotmail.com> Subject: New Agenda 02-16-21 for www.kalispell.com View this in your browser This complimentary message is being sent to opt -in subscribers who might be interested in its content. If you do not wish to continue receiving these messages, please accept our apologies, and unsubscribe by following the instructions at the bottom of this message. * * * * * * * City Council Agenda City Council Meeting - TUESDAY... View in the Agenda Center This complimentary message is being sent to opt -in subscribers who might be interested in its content. If you do not wish to continue receiving these messages, please accept our apologies, and unsubscribe by visiting our website at: http://www.kalispell.com/list.aspx Please note, we will not sell or give your e-mail address to any organization without your explicit permission. You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to City Council Agenda on www.kalispell.com. To unsubscribe, click the following link: Unsubscribe Kari Barnhart From: Aimee Brunckhorst Sent: Thursday, March 4, 2021 8:00 AM To: Kari Barnhart; Jarod Nygren; PJ Sorensen Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] ADU Re -Vote? From: Brett Morton <brett.morton@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 6:20 PM To: Kalispell Meetings Public Comment <publiccomment@kalispell.com> Cc: Alessia Donigaglia <alessia.donigaglia@gmail.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] ADU Re -Vote? Hello, I'm writing to understand what happened last month with the ADU situation...? I'd written prior to the cote last month, which to my understanding passed 7-2. I've recently been informed that another vote was held to go back on that vote (5-4?) against the expanded ADUs in Kalispell. As I wrote before, I find the ADU to be the one option my wife and I have to allow us the space to continue living in our home at 538 3rd Ave W following the birth of our first child this summer. While I'm sure not everyone in the neighborhood fits into our exact situation, the point remains, l think, that the ADU option is an opportunity to provide more space, rental income, or whatever it may be while maintaining the character and community of Kalispell, as opposed to people such as ourselves moving out of city limits and renting our home to someone not so interested in the direction Kalispell goes. I went to Elrod (and Hedges) elementary schools, and would love to have my child go there as well. Without the opportunity to grow here as we need, you (City Council) kind of rule this option out. Please do let me know what changed between the time this was approved and the time this was denied. I'd be very interested to understand how this could possibly benefit this area I know so well. Thanks, - Brett