06-28-21 Work Session Agenda and Materials
Page 1 of 1
CITY COUNCIL
WORK SESSION AGENDA
June 28, 2021, at 7:00 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers, 201 First Avenue East
The public can participate in person in the council chambers or via videoconferencing.
Register to join the video conference at:.
https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_hdqamnFUSzC6BgGC3y9OIQ.
Public comment can also be provided via email to publiccomment@kalispell.com.
A. CALL TO ORDER
B. DISCUSSION ITEMS
1. American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Allocations and Projects
2. Montana Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act
3. Accessory Dwelling Units
C. PUBLIC COMMENT
Persons wishing to address the council are asked to do so at this time. Public comment
can be provided in person, verbally during the online meeting, or via email to
publiccomment@kalispell.com
D. CITY MANAGER, COUNCIL, AND MAYOR REPORTS
E. ADJOURNMENT
UPCOMING SCHEDULE / FOR YOUR INFORMATION
City Offices Closed – Monday, July 5, 2021 – Independence Day Observed
Next Regular Meeting – TUESDAY, July 6, 2021, at 7:00 p.m. – Council Chambers
Next Work Session – July 12, 2021, at 7:00 p.m. – Council Chambers
Watch City Council sessions live on Charter Cable Channel 190 or online at the Meetings on
Demand tab at www.kalispell.com.
1
201 1st Avenue East, P.O. Box 1997,
Kalispell, MT 59903-Phone (406)758-7720
www.kalispell.com
To: Doug Russell, City Manager
From: Susie Turner, P.E., Public Works Director
Re: American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Allocations and Projects
Meeting Date: June 28, 2021
BACKGROUND: The American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) was signed into law March 11, 2021
to address the COVID-19 pandemic. There are three sources of funding the City may receive
associated with ARPA eligible water and sewer projects.
1. Local Fiscal Recovery (LFR) Funds – Directly allocated to the City based on CDBG
formula. Kalispell is estimated to receive $6,274,866.98
2. HB 632 State Fiscal Recovery Funds - Minimum Allocation Grant (MAG)–directly
allocated, noncompetitive, based on gas tax formula. Match is required to receive MAG.
Kalispell is directly allocated $3,554,001 and the required match is $1,568,716.75. LFR
funds may be used for match.
3. HB 632 State Fiscal Recovery Funds - Competitive Grant – up to $25 million / project.
Match amount is required and will be a factor in the funding decisions, in addition to
project description, problem and solution, level of readiness, project schedule and budget.
Grant allocation ranking and preference will be based on four areas.
a. Public Health and Safety – uses existing SRF ranking scheme (documented risk)
b. Readiness to Proceed – hired an engineer, planning complete, construction to begin
in 24 months
c. Affordability – rates vs median household income (MHI)
d. Match – proposed specific percentage/amount, final calculation will be discussed at
the Infrastructure Advisory Commission meeting 6/28. LFR, MAG, and local
government funding sources can be used as the match.
2
201 1st Avenue East, P.O. Box 1997,
Kalispell, MT 59903-Phone (406)758-7720
www.kalispell.com
APPLICATION AND DEADLINES: Each funding source has prescribed requirements for the
schedule deadlines for the application process. For all funding sources funds must be obligated
by December 31, 2024 and spent by December 31, 2026. Obligated is defined as contracted and
ready to be spent.
1. Local Fiscal Recovery (LFR) Funds – Application submitted to DNRC for eligibility
review and approval. Must meet project obligation and spending deadlines.
2. Minimum Allocation Grant (MAG)–DNRC accepting applications from July 15, 2021, to
January 31, 2023. IAC reviews project eligibility and receive final approval from
Governor.
3. Competitive Grant – Application deadline is July 15, 2021. IAC reviews, selects, and
ranks projects. Applicants will be notified of their competitive grant awards by August of
2021.
KALISPELL PROPOSED PROJECTS: In consideration of the City’s capital improvement
plan, ARPA project eligibility requirements, and ranking criteria for the competitive grant the
following projects are being proposed by staff to be supported by the three funding sources.
City Utility Projects Est. Cost1
Sewer Gravity Sewer R/R on 1st and 2nd Ave. EN $1,196,414
Grandview LS and Force Main Relocation and Rehabilitation $7,152,683
Water Lower Zone Storage Tank Roof Replacement $4,248,300
Replacement of Noffsinger Spring Source $1,771,916
WWTP Influent Pipe Replacement and Rehabilitation of diversion structure $513,645
Storm WQ Treat Unit-Wyoming – MS4 TMDL Action Plan $477,500
WQ Treat Unit- 8th Ave W– MS4 TMDL Action Plan $395,280
WQ Treat Unit - 1st Ave W– MS4 TMDL Action Plan $395,500
Total $16,151,237
1. Est. cost reflect facility planning numbers. Cost estimates will be reviewed and adjusted to reflect current
and future cost values for direct allocation and grant application submittals.
The objective of this work session is to inform City Council of the ARPA allocations the City
can receive, the application process, projects proposed to be funded, and Kalispell’s project
application status.
City of Kalispell
Post Office Box 1997 - Kalispell, Montana 59903-1997
Telephone (406) 758-7700 Fax - (406) 758-7758
MEMORANDUM
To: Honorable Mayor Johnson and City Council
From: Doug Russell, City Manager
Re: Montana Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act
Meeting Date: June 28, 2021
BACKGROUND: In May of 2021, the “Montana Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act” (HB
701) was signed into law. Attached to this memo is a breakdown of the Act and how it impacts
local governments.
The primary component for the City of Kalispell to address is the zoning aspects of the activity
that is now legal with the passage of this Act. The City of Kalispell currently does not have
provisions for this type of commercial activity within our zoning code. As described in the
attachment, there are various approaches the Council can consider for the zoning of this industry
within the municipal limits. The primary goal for the work session is to get direction from the
City Council related to zoning so we can begin preparing the appropriate ordinance changes
required to comply with the Act.
At the meeting, we will provide an overview of the Act and initiate discussion on zoning and the
impacts of various zones, conditions, etc., by using an interactive mapping platform.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council review the materials
provided and provide guidance to staff for appropriate changes within the zoning code.
Page 1 of 5
Charles A. Harball
City Attorney
City of Kalispell
Office of City Attorney
201 First Avenue East
P.O. Box 1997
Kalispell, MT 59903-1997
_______________________
Tel 406.758.7709
Fax 406.758.7758
charball@kalispell.com
MEMORANDUM
To: Doug Russell, City Manager
From: Johnna Preble, Assistant City Attorney
PJ Sorensen, Senior Planner
Subject: Marijuana Dispensaries/Retail Stores
Meeting Date: June 28, 2021 (Work Session)
I. Background
On May 18, 2021, Governor Greg Gianforte signed House Bill 701 (“HB 701”)
legalizing adult use of marijuana in the State of Montana. HB 701, now entitled the “Montana
Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act” (“Act”), has since been codified under Title 16,
Chapter 12 of the Montana Code Annotated (“MCA”).
The Act provides that, effective October 1, 2021, the Department of Revenue
(“Department”) shall issue licenses for “adult-use dispensaries established by adult-use providers
or adult-use marijuana-infused products providers.1” Under the Act, “[a] person who obtains an
… adult-use dispensary license or an employee of a licensed adult-use provider or marijuana-
infused products provider is authorized to cultivate, manufacture, possess, sell, and transport
marijuana as allowed by [the Act].”
The Act gives local governments the authority to regulate adult-use providers and adult-
use marijuana-infused product providers that operate within the local government’s jurisdictional
area.
The Department must start accepting applications for licenses on or before January 1,
2022. Importantly, the Act explicitly encourages local governments to begin the process to
approve any or all marijuana business categories beginning on July 1, 2021. The City of
1 An “adult-use provider” is “a person licensed by the [D]epartment to cultivate and process marijuana for consumers
as allowed by [the Act].” An “adult-use marijuana-infused products provider” is “a person licensed by the
[D]epartment to manufacture and provide marijuana-infused products for consumers as allowed by [the Act].”
Page 2 of 5
Kalispell will likely see providers intending to open marijuana dispensaries licensed by the
Department as early as January 31, 2022.2
II. Zoning Questions Regarding Marijuana Dispensaries
Currently, Section 27.03.010(8) of the Zoning Ordinance states that “No use of land shall
be permitted or conditionally permitted within the City of Kalispell that is in violation of federal,
state, or local law.” That section currently prevents marijuana dispensaries, cultivation, and
processing within the city. With the recent changes in state law, that should be revisited. There
are a couple different approaches we could take:
(1) While dispensaries are not listed as a specific use, Section 27.02.030 allows the
Zoning Administrator to classify a use with the closest listed use. A dispensary in
many senses is a retail business, just like a liquor store or pharmacy, for example.
Both of those uses are permitted in all of the business and health care zones. We
could allow it as a permitted use without restrictions under the current ordinance by
considering it as a retail use. There certainly would be concerns about how they
would fit into the community, but it is an option.
(2) Similarly, cultivation is not a listed use within the ordinance, but could be considered
to fall under “greenhouse, nursery centers and landscaping materials” by its definition
or an “agricultural or horticultural” use. Processing might be considered to be
accessory to those uses, or could fall under a manufacturing/industrial category. As
with dispensaries, simply using existing categories may not adequately address how
to best fit the use within the community.
(3) Casinos were discussed at the Council level several years ago. In that context, the
Council limited the zones where casinos could operate and placed certain criteria on
them, such as distances from churches, schools, parks, city residential zones, federal
highways and other casinos. They created an “accessory casino” classification for
casinos that did not meet the buffer requirements. Design criteria were added to
provide a separation from the primary use (eg a bar or restaurant) and generally shield
it from view both externally and internally.
We could create categories for marijuana dispensaries, cultivation, and processing,
and attach criteria that would mitigate some of the impacts. Those criteria could
include a conditional use permit or an administrative conditional use permit, buffers
from certain types of uses, or other design standards. Whether or not a conditional
use permit is helpful in this situation would be something to discuss, as would be
2 HB 701 provides that for the first 18 months only medical marijuana providers approved by the State by November
3, 2020, will be licensed by the Department. New providers may apply for licenses beginning July 1, 2023.
Page 3 of 5
what other criteria would be appropriate. We also could simply limit them to certain
zones (eg industrial) with or without criteria.
SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL ZONING APPROACHES
For discussion by the Council, there are a couple general directions that could be taken in
how the City should approach these uses as we look to integrate the new state legislation into the
zoning ordinance:
(1) We could create separate use categories for dispensaries, cultivation, and processing,
and place each as a permitted use within an appropriate zoning district. The allowed
districts may include all or most commercial/industrial zones (B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, B-
5, H-1, I-1, and I-2), or could be restricted to a more limited scope. Casinos (as
opposed to accessory casinos connected with a bar or restaurant, for example), are
limited to only the B-5 with a conditional use permit. Similarly, sexually oriented
businesses are only allowed in the I-1 and I-2 industrial zones with a conditional use
permit. Marijuana related businesses could be similarly restricted to certain zones.
(2) Along with creating use categories and placing them within certain zoning districts,
the Council also could consider certain standard criteria for each use. Criteria could
include buffers from other marijuana establishments and residential zones, as well as
schools and churches (although there is already a buffer from those uses under the
state statute).3 The Council also should consider whether a conditional use or
administrative conditional use permit should be necessary.
III. Legal Issues Regarding Marijuana Dispensaries
A. Election
Under the Act, qualified electors of a municipality or of a county may request an election
on whether to prohibit by ordinance any or all marijuana business categories from being located
within the jurisdiction. An election pursuant to this section may be held in conjunction with a
regular election of the governing body, general election, or a regular local or special election.
B. Limits on Ordinances and Regulations of Local Governments
While the Act allows local governments to create regulations and ordinances regarding
marijuana dispensaries, it also places limits on that power. First, the Act states that any
ordinance or regulation must be set in place “[t]o protect the public health, safety, or welfare.”
While the Act’s language is broad, it would be crucial that the city articulate a clear health,
safety, or welfare purpose behind any regulation or ordinance adopted and provide a detailed
explanation of how the regulation or ordinance is narrowly tailored to address that purpose.
3 HB 701 requires that a marijuana business not be within 500 feet of a school or place of worship. Additionally, the
bill states that municipalities may not reduce the 500-foot spacing between a marijuana business and a place of
worship or school. This has not made it into the MCA, yet.
Page 4 of 5
Additionally, a discrepancy exists between the language of HB 701 and the Act as
codified in the MCA. Section 16-12-201(1)(b), MCA, states that “a local government may not
adopt ordinances or regulations that are unduly burdensome.” “Unduly Burdensome” is defined
in § 16-12-102, MCA, as “requiring such a high investment of money, time, or any other
resource or asset to achieve compliance that a reasonably prudent businessperson would not
operate.” However, HB 701 struck both the restriction on local governments and the definition
of “Unduly Burdensome.” It remains unclear whether the discrepancy is merely an error and
what the State will ultimately do to fix it. At this point, the “unduly burdensome” language is
broad and will likely result in litigation. Therefore, the City would benefit from erring on the
side of caution with any ordinance or regulation adopted, especially prior to any guidance that
might come from the Department in October as described in Section E below.
Finally, HB 701 requires license applicants to comply with local ordinances and
regulations to obtain licenses. Thus, the City should send certified copies of any ordinance or
regulation to the Department once adopted.
C. Local Government Taxing Authority
HB 701 states that the qualified electors of a county may authorize their county to impose
a local-option marijuana excise tax within the corporate boundary of the county. The Act states,
“The rate of the local option marijuana excise tax must be established by the election petition or
resolution … and the rate may not exceed 3% [of the retail value of all marijuana and marijuana
products sold at an adult use dispensary or medical marijuana dispensary].” If the tax is imposed
by the county, 50% of the resulting tax revenue must be retained by the county and 45% must be
apportioned to the municipalities on the basis of the ratio of the population of the city or town to
the total county population. The remaining 5% must be retained by the Department and
deposited into the state special revenue account.
HB 701 allows for broad use of the tax revenue, stating:
Unless otherwise restricted, a county or municipality may appropriate and expend
revenue derived from a local-option marijuana excise tax for any activity,
undertaking, or administrative service that the municipality is authorized by law to
perform, including costs resulting from the imposition of the tax or due to
administrative burdens imposed on the municipality as a result of licensing or
regulatory requirements imposed in this chapter.
In summary, should Flathead County impose the excise tax, the City of Kalispell would
receive a portion of 45% of the tax revenue based on the population as compared to other
municipalities in the county, but the City could use that portion for any lawful purpose.4
4 As an example of an appropriate use of the tax revenue, the City could use the revenue to both employ and train a
Drug Recognition Expert through the Kalispell Police Department to address issues in the prosecution of marijuana
and other drug DUI cases.
Page 5 of 5
D. Advertising and Signage
HB 701 prohibits persons with licenses from advertising marijuana or marijuana products
in any medium, including electric media.5
E. Guidance from Department of Revenue
The MCA requires the Department to “promulgate rules and regulations to administer
and enforce [the Act]” “[n]o later than October 1, 2021.”6 The MCA states that the rules
provided by the Department “may not be unduly burdensome.”7 Id. The Department may
provide more guidance to local governments through the new rules and regulations.
5 Another discrepancy between HB 701 and the MCA exists in this section. Section 16-12-211 states that persons
with licenses may not advertise “marijuana or marijuana-related products in any medium, including electronic
media.” (Emphasis added.) It remains unclear whether marijuana dispensaries/stores will use this as a loophole to
advertise paraphernalia or other items for sale.
6 Yet another discrepancy between HB 701 and the MCA. HB 701 struck language requiring the Department to
have rules out by October 1. However, the Department’s website states, “The Department of Revenue is currently
evaluating what rules and processes are necessary for about these topics.”
7 As stated above, HB 701 removed the language defining “unduly burdensome.”
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: Zoning Text Amendment – Accessory Dwelling Units
MEETING DATE: June 28, 2021 (work session)
BACKGROUND: At the City Council meeting on September 14, 2020, there was interest expressed
in allowing accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in the city. There was a Council work session where
various options were discussed, and staff was asked to take the matter to the Planning Board for
input. The Planning Board discussed it at a work session and held a duly noticed public hearing,
eventually forwarding a positive recommendation on a 6-1 vote.
The Kalispell City Council discussed the matter at a work session on January 11, 2021, and then at
regular City Council meetings on January 19, February 1, and February 16. The ordinance did not
receive formal approval at that time. Recently, the City Council requested that the matter be brought
up for further discussion at a work session and it was discussed at a work session on June 14, 2021.
Based on that discussion, the proposed ordinance was 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 consider the matter and
direct staff to bring the matter forward at a regular meeting for formal consideration.
FISCAL EFFECTS: There are no anticipated fiscal impacts at this time.
ALTERNATIVES: Deny the request.
ATTACHMENTS: Updated proposed ordinance text
Staff Report/Maps
c: Aimee Brunckhorst, Kalispell City Clerk
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.
(1) 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).
(2) 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 principal 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.
(3) 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
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.
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, AeroGR ID, IGN, and the G IS
User Community
Kalispell Zoning - October 2020R-1, RA-1, RA-2, H-1, B-1, B-2, B-3 & B-4
Date: Dec. 3rd, 2020
FilePath: j\2020\1022
Kalispell Planning Dept.
0 10.5 Miles
N
Commercial
Residential Apt / Office
Health Care
Light / Heave 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 GIS
User Community
Kalispell Zoning - October 2020Zones where ADU's would be addedR-4 and R-5
Date: Oct. 22nd, 2020
FilePath: 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 GIS
User Community
Kalispell Zoning - October 2020 Zones where ADU's would not be allowedR-2 and R-3
Date: Oct. 22nd, 2020
FilePath: j\2020\1022
Kalispell Planning Dept.
0 10.5 Miles
N
R-2 & R-3