Loading...
01-12-10KALISPELL CITY PLANNING BOARD & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 12, 2010 CALL TO ORDER AND The regular meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and ROLL CALL Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Board members present were: Bryan Schutt, John Hinchey, Rick Hull, C.M. (Butch) Clark, Chad Graham, Troy Mendius and Richard Griffin. P.J. Sorensen, Sean Conrad and Tom Jentz represented the Kalispell Planning Department. There were 9 people in the audience. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mendius moved and Hinchey seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the December 8, 2009 meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission. ROLL CALL The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. PUBLIC COMMENT Steve Eckels, 619 Second Avenue West, Kalispell said he is representing himself and a citizens group called Quiet Skies. He urged the board to consider rezoning the city airport property to eliminate flight schools. He reviewed 6 assurances that were developed by his organization and added the FAA and City of Kalispell have declined to sign those assurances. Eckels mentioned Quiet Skies is having a meeting on Thursday at 7:00 - 9:00 pm at the Outlaw Inn, and he added one of the speakers, Vince Jensen who is Polson's Airport Manager, cancelled due to the urging from an employee of Stelling Engineers. He reviewed the duties of the Polson Airport Manager and indicated their airport is governed however Kalispell's airport is not. He also indicated the Kalispell airport won't be expanded because the airport is not going to pass a legitimate environmental assessment. Eckels said this board can save the city a tremendous amount of time and money by putting an end to the anarchy that is going on down there by governing the airport through zoning. He also indicated that contrary to what others have said it is safe to have flight training at the Glacier International Airport. The opponents of Quiet Skies will say that they were here first and he would like to remind the board that the airport is owned by 22,000 residents and the flight school is here as a guest. Eckels quoted the Montana Constitution which states, "We give thanks to God for the quietness of our great state." He doesn't know how we can thank God for the quietness and at the same time allow more noise to come in. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of January 12, 2010 Page 1 of 7 Eckels has been in touch with David Cole and Bruce Lutz regarding a grant to look at alternatives for developing the airport property. The location of the airport is a poor choice and serves a select few and the place to make changes is in the zoning. He urged the board to do what is in the best interest of the most people. Eckels submitted an outline of his comments for the record. A copy is attached to the minutes. Peter Hoag, 150 Liahona Lane said he is before the board to petition on behalf of the students of Flathead High School to open Four Mile Drive to connection to Spring Creek Road due to the drastic amount of traffic congestion during activities at KidSports. Schutt asked staff when there are zoning text amendments, such as the one recommended by Mr. Eckels, is meeting with the planning office the correct first step in that process and Jentz said yes and he added there would be a filing fee to process the application. Jentz noted the board is looking at amendments to the zoning ordinance tonight and could incorporate that discussion into this process. There was discussion regarding the Four Mile Drive connection with Spring Creek Road. Jentz noted the connection is referenced in the Growth Policy and Transportation Plan for the future. The developers of Bloomstone will be required to construct the portion of the connector from their eastern property boundary to their western property boundary which will include a major grading project; and the developers of the Starling property will be required to finish the connection as part of a phase that won't be completed for some time. Note: both developments have been postponed due to the economy. There was further discussion regarding the traffic generated by KidSports; working with KidSports to bring another connection through to the north to the West Reserve Loop; the effect the grading of the hill will have on the property to the south; the road connections involved in the 911 project; and whether the Alternate Truck Route contracts would include the Four Mile Drive connection. Jentz added the Alternate Truck Route would be constructed over where the future alignment of Four Mile Drive will be located but does not include the connection as a part of their contract. TEXT AMENDMENT: A request by the City of Kalispell for a zoning text amendment. UPDATE OF THE The amendment can be characterized as an update of the ordinance KALISPELL CITY ZONING as a whole. The update is a fine-tuning to make the document ORDINANCE more user-friendly and to better reflect the City as it looks today. The update has included efforts to (a) eliminate ambiguities and Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of January 12, 2010 Page 2 of 7 outdated terms; (b) consolidate the RA-2 with the RA-3 multi- family zones and the B-2 with the B-3 business zones; (c) streamline and standardize property development standards; (d) review the intents of each zone and adjust uses accordingly; (e) update the definitions section to reflect current terms and uses; (f) provide a better connection between the zoning ordinance and the growth policy; (g) provide a method to allow minor administrative adjustments from some development standards; (h) modify the administrative conditional use permit process; (i) amend parking regulations in the downtown area by reducing the number of required spaces; and 0) make other minor modifications to existing standards as necessary. STAFF REPORT KZTA-10-01 P.J. Sorensen, representing the Kalispell Planning Department reviewed staff report KZTA-10-01. Sorensen said the planning board has spent the better part of the last 9 months working on an update to the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance characterized as a fine-tuning to try to bring it up to what the city looks like today and make it more user-friendly. To incorporate community involvement staff has, from the beginning, posted both a marked -up and clean version of the draft on the website and sent out 3 sets of mailings to over 80 interested parties (builders, engineers, architects, planners, realtors, etc.). An open house was held in November to answer questions and staff received some good input throughout that process. Sorensen reviewed 14 points that summarizes the changes for the board which is included in the staff report. Sorensen said he wanted to point out that added to the current draft was allowing small scale projecting signs on Main Street which was a request by the Architectural Review Committee and other downtown organizations. Sorensen added the items that were discussed at work sessions but are not included in the draft are the single-family design standards and the entrance corridor standards which may be moved forward in the future as separate amendments. Prior to the meeting staff distributed a revised staff report to reflect recent changes in the Montana Code used for analyzing criteria in the staff reports; and a copy of written comments received from Merna Terry along with a staff memo to respond to Ms. Terry's concerns. Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt the findings in staff report #KZTA-10-01 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of January 12, 2010 Page 3 of 7 the proposed amendments be adopted per the draft submitted. BOARD QUESTIONS None. PUBLIC HEARING Merna Terry, 1505 Whalebone Drive said she sent a letter (copy attached) and received a response from staff. She also spoke to Sorensen, which she added was very helpful. Terry said Sorensen told her that the changes to the setbacks were to make sure that driveways are not so short that cars are encroaching on the sidewalks and therefore reduce need for enforcement of the sidewalk ordinance. She her major concern is in R-4 & R-5 zones where she and her husband build homes and the front setback is currently 15 feet which, she added really ends up to be 17 feet since the setback is measured from the eave. They have been building the garages and driveways like that since 1994. Their homeowners have rarely asked for longer driveways because they like larger back yards. Her big concern with a 20 foot minimum driveway length is the cost to the homeowner would be $17.00 a square foot and end up costing the homeowner an additional $918.00 which would not be appropriate in neighborhoods that are consider affordable. She drove around several neighborhoods and saw only a few instances where the vehicle was encroaching on the sidewalk and if she was voting she would vote to change the driveway minimum requirement to 17 feet instead of 20 feet. Terry said the update does make the regulations easier to read and she thanked the board and staff for their time and efforts. Charles Lapp, 3230 Columbia Falls Stage Road said he also owns property in Kalispell. Lapp referred to the attached letter. His comments included the following: • Removal of Manufactured Home Parks from districts • Reference to "Redevelopment" Area in the Architectural Review section • Simplify standards and focus on the purpose of the standards to protect health, safety and general welfare • Increase building height limits • Written & oral comments submitted at public hearings • Overly specific definitions Lapp thanked the board for the time spent in this endeavor. He added the board and staff did a good job. MOTION Hinchey moved and Clark seconded a motion to adopt the findings in staff report #KZTA-10-01 as amended and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the proposed amendments be adopted per the draft ordinance submitted. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of January 12, 2010 Page 4 of 7 BOARD DISCUSSION Clark asked for staff s comments regarding the statements made by Ms. Terry. Jentz said some of the subdivisions she referenced were built in an era when there was a minimum 5 foot boulevard with a 5 foot sidewalk leaving 3-5 feet of public R/W on the back side of the sidewalk. In the subdivision Terry was talking about, homeowners with a 15 foot garage setback actually park over the R/W now. The city council recently amended the city design and construction standards so that the sidewalks in new subdivisions will be moved to the outside edge of the R/W where they used to be traditionally built. The proposed 20 foot minimum driveway length would compensate for that change. There is an ordinance in the city where cars cannot overhang driveways and what we don't want to do is create more of an enforcement situation. Sorensen added for a single family residence with a single car garage a 25 foot driveway was required and that has been dropped down to 20 feet to allow for some averaging out to try and standardize the regulations. Jentz said in some projects there is going to be a slight cost increase and others a slight cost decrease. Hinchey noted another thing the board was trying to accomplish was to hide the garage by putting it back 5 feet from the rest of the structure and Jentz said that falls under the single-family design standards which will be addressed at a later date. Jentz noted in the R-3 zone there was a 20 foot setback and now it has been changed to allow the house to come 5 feet closer but the garage still stays at the 20 foot setback. There was lengthy discussion regarding Mr. Lapp's reference to section 27.34.030(a) which reads, "Written and oral public comment received at the hearing shall be based on fact and not speculation." and it was decided to delete Section 27.34.030(a) and amend Section 27.34.030(b) to read as follows: "Testimony should be specific in establishing the level and degree of positive and negative impacts associated with the project." Hull asked if it is true that manufactured mobile home parks are not allowed in the city and Sorensen said the reason that was dropped as a use is because it is almost like saying single-family residential subdivisions are a permitted use in a zone because once you create the subdivision in a zone that allows single-family residential use and you can put in manufactured homes whether it is 1 out of 100 or 100 out of 100. Sorensen continued it didn't eliminate manufactured homes as a use it just doesn't list manufactured home parks as a use within the zoning districts. The existing mobile home parks are grandfathered in but are not allowed as a new use which is the way the city has dealt with them in the past and no changes were proposed in the ordinance. Further discussion was held. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of January 12, 2010 Page 5 of 7 Schutt said he finds the new version of the zoning relatively readable and he is in favor of moving the updates forward. Graham asked for further clarification on the 20 foot setback for garages and how that would be measured. Sorensen said currently setbacks are measured from the property line and that will not change. What Jentz was referencing, Sorensen said, is in existing subdivisions the sidewalks might be located several feet from the property line and the vehicles may be encroaching into the right-of- way but not over the sidewalk. If you move the sidewalk to the edge of the property line vehicles blocking the sidewalk becomes more of an issue. Jentz explained further. Jentz said regarding the reference to the "Redevelopment Area" staff thinks that should be deleted and it should reference Kalispell instead. The board agreed to that amendment. Sorensen explained further. Hinchey asked if the development standards and the revised use categories by zone would be included in the document and Sorensen said yes, attached as an appendix. Hinchey said he found those tools to be extremely useful. Hinchey had questions regarding the Off -Street Parking Design Standards under required parking and noted there are no references for non -conforming uses and the requirements for those uses. Sorensen said under the general non -conforming chapter if they are legal now there is no need to add parking to comply with that ordinance. Sorensen provided an example. Jentz said he wanted to address another point Mr. Lapp brought up regarding lighting and signage. When you look at the lighting and signage codes there are a number of changes proposed but staff s focus was to reduce the number of sections that are repeated in other sections. MOTION — AMENDMENTS Schutt moved and Hull seconded a motion to approve the following amendments to the Kalispell City Zoning Ordinance Update: 1. Delete section 27.34.030(2)(a) and modify section 27.34.030(2)(b) to read as follows: "Testimony should be specific in establishing the level and degree of positive or negative impacts associated with the project." 2. Remove the "Redevelopment Area" reference and add "Kalispell" to the Architectural Review Committee section 27.23.010(1). ROLL CALL - The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of January 12, 2010 Page 6 of 7 AMENDMENTS BOARD DISCUSSION Hinchey noted in the sign regulations under projecting signs there is not an exception for the downtown area and he thought the maximum size of the signs was too large. Sorensen said the section Hinchey noted are general standards relating to projecting signs and it is more specific under section 27.24.110(4) were it lists the permitted signs in the B-2, B-4, B-5, I-1 and I-2 zones. Most of the zones will allow projecting signs pursuant to the standards that Hinchey referenced. Sorensen continued on Main Street in the B-4 zone between Center and 8th Street projecting signs from 9 to 15 square feet are allowed if they meet certain standards. Hinchey thought that might be confusing and Sorensen provided further clarification. ROLL CALL — ORIGINAL The motion, as amended, passed unanimously on a roll call vote. MOTION OLD BUSINESS: None. NEW BUSINESS: 1. 2010 Planning Board Work Program. Staff suggested moving this item to a work session. MOTION Hinchey moved and Schutt seconded a motion to move the 2010 Planning Board Work Program discussion under new business to a work session immediately following this meeting. ROLL CALL The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:30 p.m. NEXT MEETING The next regular meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission is scheduled for February 9, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. in the Kalispell City Council Chambers located at 201 First Avenue East in Kalispell. The next work session of the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission is tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, February 23, 2010, at 7:00 p.m. in the Kalispell City Council Chambers located at 201 First Avenue East in Kalispell. /s/ Bryan H. Schutt Bryan H. Schutt President APPROVED as submitted: 3/9/10 /s/ Michelle Anderson Michelle Anderson Recording Secretary Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of January 12, 2010 Page 7 of 7 Steve Eckels 619 Second Ave. W. Kalispell Planning/Zoning Meeting January 12, 2010 Request: Please re -zone the airport property to eliminate flight schools! FAA suggestion Background of Quiet Skies: Called to Service FAA change the Zoning Laws to move the Middle Man The 6 assurances are unsigned more noise, risk, property value, no improvement of management, flight training inextricably linked, no compensation. Invitation to Thursday's meeting: Outlaw Inn 7:00-9:00 On the agenda are several resolutions including study of alternate development options Vince Jennison gagged by Stelling Associates Hard to admit mistakes: "the gambler metaphor". Can't trust anyone who has been connected with the project to give you good advice or information. The length of time necessary to achieve an expansion 14 years The safety of GPI Ungovernable vs. Governable: the difference between Kalispell and Polson; The problem with the middle man: Red Eagle Pays the Rent Threats to members of the planning office -- Threats to Vince Jennison What they will say: who's here first? who owns the airport who is a guest of the stockholders? David Cole - Department of Commerce; Community Development Grants; 406-841-2770 Morrison and Maierle - 406-752-2216 "A poor choice" for an airport Serves a "select few" (some with money including the Hilton) Streetscape Associates - Bruce Lutz - 892-3492 These things have a "snowball" effect! CONSTRUCTION, Inc. area#- tocat, feusfed 6tiaitder apt aoorda6le homes 7 Meridian Court - Kalispell, MT 59901- (406) 755-7516- Fax (406) 755-1546 www.ronterryconstruction.com January 11, 2010 City of Kalispell Planning,Eoard 201 1 st Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Dear City of Kalispell Planning Board, D EC EEVE JAN 11 2010 KALISPELL PLANNING DEPARTMENT I just took some time to review the zoning text amendment in preparing for the public hearing on January 12, 2010. It looks like you spent some time making the document easier to read and navigate. Thank you for the time you've taken to work on this document. I have concerns about the front setbacks for homes versus garages. It appears that in all residential zones the minimum front setback for homes is 5' less than the minimum front/side setback for garages. I am guessing that these setbacks are in place because there are people who feel that homes with garages that extend in front of the rest of the building are aesthetically unappealing. I believe that the aesthetics of extended garages is a personal opinion and that the affordability of extended garages far outweighs the possible aesthetics on this issue. However, the end effect of the setbacks will most likely be that builders will build homes with extended garages but with longer driveways and smaller back yards that are more expensive because a longer driveway will be needed. The reason many builders of affordable homes include layouts with garages extending in front of the homes is a combination of narrow lot layouts and affordability. On narrow lots it is necessary to use the space behind the garage for living space in order to build homes large enough for families to live in. I have spent some time trying to come up with options for building homes affordably for people on city lots which don't include garages extending in front of the homes. The options I have come up with are building homes with detached garages in alleys and building multi -level homes. Detached garages add quite a bit of cost to a home because two foundations/buildings.are required and there are also drainage issues with alley - loaded homes and problems with snow -plowing and access. We are in the process of adding some multi -level homes to our collection. However, there are quite a few people who want single -level homes with attached garages. We still need the option of building single level homes with attached garages and will need to extend the garage in front of the home in order to make homes fit on narrower lots (I consider narrow lots to be lots narrower than 70 feet). If the City does truly decide that they want to discourage extended garage homes, the other option I came up with would be an incentive for builders to build homes without extended garages. Perhaps the City of Kalispell could allow a shorter front yard setback than is already in the current zoning if the garages are behind the home, even with the home or are only five feet in front of the home. This incentive would add a bit more space for living in the back of the home and allow for a shorter driveway which would save homeowners money. Another incentive for building homes without large garage extensions would be to allow eaves on the side of the building to not count towards the setback requirement if garages are not extended in front of the home. The other issue I was interested in is signage. I am not sure what changes have been made from the original sign ordinance because I didn't take the time to review the changes line by line, but would encourage allowing three off -premise temporary signs for real estate for sale in residential areas. It is difficult to sell from model homes in a neighborhood when you are unable to direct people to the home. I am also aware that the Empire Estates Homeowners' Association has been attempting to build and erect entrance signs for their neighborhood, but they have not found a legal way to put those signs up except by attaching them to the fence of a private home. It seems to me that there should be a legal way for them to put up free-standing entrance signs to their neighborhood. I read through the signage part of the proposed zoning text amendment and it seems to me that you may have made the changes to make this legal. Please discuss this issue specifically to see if these types of signs would be legal. Thank you for your time and attention working on these issues. I know you have spent many volunteer hours working on behalf of the citizens of Kalispell and I appreciate your time and efforts. Sincerely, Merna Terry Planning Board: I have spent the better part of today going through the proposed zoning regs and find that overall it appears to be a workable update. I do however have several comments on some of the changes, and seeing as how there are over 400 pages in the two versions it will take some more review to comprehend all of it. I am wondering how it was determined that certain uses should be removed from Kalispell's zoning districts? The one that appears to have been removed is Manufactured Home Parks. Is this use allowed as residential or is this a use Kalispell no longer wants? In the Design Standards 27.22.030 it seems to allow for moving "stick built homes" from one place to another but (2) seems to preclude being able to move homes that were actually designed to be moved, this is a concern. There are several other uses that appear to have gone away but maybe those uses have just been consolidated in with something else. I have always been a proponent of having as many uses as possible on any given site. In the Architectural Review section it refers to "The Redevelopment Area" and I am wondering if that is a specific part of the city or if it is the whole city? The lighting and signage sections cover many pages and there are 24 definitions of different types of signs and about that many types of lighting. I think it is easy to get out of the purpose of what these regulations are supposed to do which is protect health, safety and general welfare and just try to prohibit something that someone doesn't like eg. Signs and Lights. There are several places that building heights are discussed and I think sooner or later we are going to have to start looking at growing up. Many of the districts allow up to 60 feet and one district allows for unlimited height which is great however 27.35.023 restricts the height within 150 feet of an R-zone. This should be ground checked to see how this would affect those zoning designations close to the R-zones. In section 27.34.030 it talks about conditional use permits, specifically 2(a) "Written and oral public comment received at the public hearing SHALL be based on fact not speculation." How is the Planning Board or Council going to proof every comment that is made by the public on a land use issue, most of which are very emotional to begin with? There was legislation at the last session that tried to insert "credible and verifiable" into the zoning codes and the legislators said it was up to the planning board and staff to make that determination after the comments were made and that sometimes in these emotional hearings people just need to vent and they have to have the right to do it. That is like saying that the lighting and sign ordinances have to be based on some type of danger to the public. When we all know that they are based on someone not liking certain types of signs and lights. 2(b) says "Testimony should be specific in maintaining the level and degree of negative impacts associated with the project" I'm not sure what this says but here again this is something that is going to be mandated to the public making the comment and are they going to have this explained to them before each hearing and is this just a way to squelch public input. Sometimes the public haven't done a study to determine "the level and degree of negative impact" they just don't want to be next to a proposed project and they need to be allowed to say that. Lastly in the definition section it appears that it has been attempted to define as many terms as can be thought up, however I believe that by being overly specific maybe some uses are than left out. As an example"Auction Yards/Livestock" is defined but "Auction Yards/Indoor" is actually the use allowed in several districts. "Schools, Commercial" is defined in detail but this is the only type of school in the definitions when there are several different types used in the different districts. Just my thoughts. Thank you for the time spent on this endeavor. Charles Lapp