Loading...
2. Ordinance 1677 - Text Amendment - Zoning Ordinance Update - 1st ReadingPlanning Department 2011" Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 758-7940 Fax: (406) 758-7739 www.kalispell.com/planning REPORT TO: Kalispell Mayor and City Council FROM: PJ Sorensen, Planner H Jane Howington, City Manager SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance Update MEETING DATE: June 28, 2010 BACKGROUND: The City of Kalispell is proposing a text amendment which would revise the zoning ordinance as a whole. The amendment can best be characterized as a thorough update of the ordinance which last received a comprehensive review in 1993. The update is also a fine-tuning to make the document more user- friendly and to better reflect the city as it looks today. Over the course of nine months, the Kalispell Planning Board held a series of seven work sessions discussing the update. Throughout the process, staff has taken several steps designed to notify the public and generate input, including posting the drafts on the city website and holding an open house to answer any questions the community may have. Several mailings were sent to a list of 80 affected builders, engineers, surveyors, planners, and landscape architects concerning the process, the open house, and the public hearing. The Board met on January 12, 2010, to hold a public hearing and formally consider the request. The Board forwarded the proposal to the Council with a positive recommendation. After some discussion as a whole, the Council decided to create a sub -committee consisting of Mayor Tammi Fisher, Councilman Bob Hafferman, and Councilman Jeff Zauner. The group met with staff for five hours over two afternoons to go through the document a page at a time. The changes resulting from those meetings are included in an attached table along with changes discussed at the Council work session. A "marked -up" draft showing changes from the current text (this version does not include the changes from the sub -committee and does not reflect final editing for typos, graphics, etc) was previously provided to the Council as part of its March and April deliberations. RECOMMENDATION: A motion to approve the ordinance would be appropriate. FISCAL EFFECTS: Minor positive impacts. ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Council. Respectfully submitted, PJ Sorensen Planner H Report compiled: June 9, 2010 c: Theresa White, Kalispell City Clerk I Jane Howington City Manager Council Changes to Proposed Zoning Ordinance Update Section (As Page Change shown in the (Marked - marked -up up version) version) 27.01.040 5 Replace "to prevent the overcrowding of land and undue concentration of population" with "promote the efficient use of land" 27.02.010 and 6-7 Consolidate the sections; Replace "Certificate" with "Official .020 Zoning Map;" add that the map is "also available on-line at the City's website." 27.02.050 8 Add "Appeal of the interpretation may be made pursuant to Chapter 27.31." 27.03.010(8) 11 Add "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." General Eliminate Table of Contents for short chapters General Change "Safe houses and domestic violence shelters" to "Safe houses" (domestic violence shelters to be treated as homeless shelters) 27.04.030 13 Add "Guest houses" General Add "community center" as a CUP in R-1 through R-5 General Replace "College or university" with "Post -secondary" 27.04.040(3) 13 Change garage setback from 25 ft to 20 ft 27.05.040(3) 16 Change garage setback from 25 ft to 20 ft 27.07.030 20 Add "Mobile Home Park" 27.09.030 25 Add "Homeless shelters" 27.09.030 29 Add "Homeless shelters" General Show RA-3 and B-3 are now omitted/consolidated 27.18.010 58 Delete "in a campus setting" 27.20.020 and 71-72 Move "Aircraft maintenance/repair" and "Airports, heliports" 030 from permitted to CUP (retain hangers as permitted) 27.22.040(2)(f)(7) 109 At end of section, add "as per the City's standards for design and construction." 27.22.040(2)(0(8) 109 Amend to read "Require on -site pedestrian access and connectivity to adjacent facilities,..." 27.24.065(3) 140 Delete "An electronic reader board shall display time and temperature a minimum of every 30 seconds" and "red and/or green lights in the display." 27.24.190 155 Add cross-reference to variance and appeals chapters 27.25.060(1)(a) 161 Amend to read "The process of reconstruction is commenced..." 27.32.020(2) 184 Amend to allow for a refund if the board rules in favor of the applicant 27.32.020(6) 185 Add "The zoning administrator shall transmit any appeal with all supporting materials to the Board of Adjustment within three days of the scheduled public hearing." Renumber code sections accordingly. 27.33.020(3) 187 Add "The zoning administrator shall transmit any variance with all supporting materials to the Board of Adjustment within three days of the scheduled public hearing." Renumber code sections accordingly. 27.34.050 195 Delete "In addition to or in lieu or other penalties ...." 27.38.010(11) 221 Under Assembly — Light, delete "Typically, all manufactured and re -manufactured...." 27.38.010(30) 225 Delete "significant segments of 27.38.010(66) 229 Staff was to review "grade" definition. "Grade" is used in reference to sign height, sign clearance, light pole height, additional building height, and deck height. Since the definition is tied to specific zoning sections and is not intended to reflect general engineering definitions, staff opted to leave the current definition unchanged. 27.38.010(154) 237 Amend "parent lot" definition to read "In instances where sublots are created, the parent lot is defined as the land within the exterior boundaries of those sublots which are intended to have adjoining structures and intended to be developed with townhouse -style construction with no setbacks along the interior sublot lines within the parent lot. Setbacks and other property development standards are applied to the external boundaries of the parent lot." Appendix A Adjust graphic for the "f'dimension Appendix B Adjust table pursuant to changes in use categories (see above) Appendix C Adjust table pursuant to changes in property development standards (see above) WHEREAS, the City of Kalispell submitted a written request to update the Zoning Regulations for the purpose of making the regulations more accessible to the public and to better reflect the current use patterns existing in the city today; and WHEREAS, the request was forwarded to the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission by the Kalispell Planning Department and evaluated pursuant to the terms of 76-3-504, Montana Code Annotated; and WHEREAS, on January 12, 2010, after discussing and analyzing the zoning regulations in numerous public workshop sessions, the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and upon receiving written and oral evidence from the public, made its recommendation to the Council that the Zoning Regulations be amended to incorporate those changes as set forth in Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the Kalispell Planning Department Report and the transmittal from the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission and hereby adopts the findings presented in Kalispell Planning Department report KZTA-10-1 as the Findings of Fact as support for the enactment of this Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The City of Kalispell Zoning Regulations are hereby amended to read as set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated fully herein by this reference. SECTION II. Ordinance 1460 of the City, and all parts or portions of other ordinances of the City in conflict herewith, are hereby repealed. SECTION III. The City Attorney is hereby authorized and directed to recodify this Ordinance. SECTION IV. 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 19TH DAY OF JULY, 2010. ATTEST: Theresa White Citv Clerk Tammi Fisher Mayor Planning Department 201 V Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 758-7940 Fax: (406) 758-7739 www.kalisnell.com/nlanning REPORT TO: Kalispell Mayor and City Council Kalispell City Planning Board FROM: PJ Sorensen, Planner H Jane Howington, City Manager SUBJECT Zoning Ordinance Update MEETING DATE: March 8, 2010 (Joint work session) BACKGROUND: The City of Kalispell is proposing a text amendment which would revise the zoning ordinance as a whole. The amendment can best be characterized as a thorough update of the ordinance which last received a comprehensive review in 1993. The update is also a fine-tuning to make the document more user-friendly and to better reflect the city as it looks today. Over the course of nine months, the Kalispell Planning Board held a series of seven work sessions discussing the update. Throughout the process, staff has taken several steps designed to notify the public and generate input. A mailing list was developed listing all architects, builders, developers, community groups, and others who commonly use the zoning ordinance. The list contained 80 names. Initially these folks were sent an outline summarizing the process, timing of the workshops, and the goals of the update, along with a link to our website. Both a marked -up (i.e. showing additions and deletions) and a clean version of the proposed update have been posted on-line for community review since last March. An open house was publicized and held at city hall from 4:00 to 9:00 PM on November 19, 2009 to answer any questions and receive any comments from the community. We received good coverage from the Daily Inter Lake prior to the meeting. In addition, everyone on the mailing list was personally invited. Several people, including two architects, attended this open house. At the December 8, 2009 planning board meeting, the board approved a motion to bring the proposal forward for formal consideration at a public hearing. Those on the mailing list were made aware of the December 8, 2009 planning board meeting and were again personally invited to the January 8, 2010 public hearing. The goals of the zoning ordinance update are: (1) Eliminate ambiguities in the text; (2) Improve readability by eliminating outdated terms and simplifying language; (3) Reduce the number of zones by consolidating the RA-2 with the RA-3 multi -family zones and the B-2 with the B-3 business zones; (4) Streamline and standardize property development standards (setbacks, minimum lot sizes, etc); (5) Review the intents of each zone and adjust uses accordingly; (6) Create a matrix which lists all uses by zone for quick reference; (7) Create a single sheet summary of lot size and setbacks by zone for quick reference; (8) Update the definitions section to reflect current terms and uses; (9) Include visuals and pictures in the ordinance to help clarify points; (10) Provide a better connection between the zoning ordinance and the growth policy; (11) Provide a method to allow minor administrative adjustments from some development standards to create a more flexible document; (12) Improve our administrative conditional use permit process which would substantially reduce the time required for the review of certain types of uses; (13) Amend parking regulations in the downtown area by reducing the number of required spaces and protecting residential areas from encroachment by commercial parking lots; and (14) Make minor modifications to existing standards as necessary. The specific changes are included in the attached "marked -up" draft which includes underlined text (for new language or indicating where sections were moved to) and strike -outs (for deleted language or indicating where sections were moved from). Please note that, while the marked -up version includes the substantive changes which were made, it does not include final editing (e.g. typos, realignment, graphics, etc) because the resulting marks tended to be more confusing than helpful. The Kalispell City Planning Board met on January 12, 2010, and held a public hearing to consider the request. Kalispell Planning Department staff presented staff report #KZTA-10-01 providing details of the proposal and the evaluation. Staff recommended the board adopt the findings of fact as proposed and recommend to the council that the amendment be adopted. Written comments were submitted by Merna Terry and Charles Lapp, who also spoke at the public hearing supporting the changes and bringing up several additional issues as well. The planning board did address those issues. Their comments are attached to the draft minutes from the meeting. There were no other public comments offered. A motion was made and seconded to recommend approval of the zoning text amendment. There was also a motion to amend the proposal which related to procedure for public hearings for conditional use permits, along with a reference change under architectural review from the Redevelopment Area to "Kalispell." The amendment passed on a 7-0 vote. The main motion as amended was approved on a 7-0 vote. RECOMMENDATION: Council direct staff to bring the proposal forward for formal consideration at the next available regular Council meeting. FISCAL EFFECTS: Minor positive impacts. ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Council. Respectfully submitted, PJ Sorensen Planner II Report compiled: February 26, 2010 c: Theresa White, Kalispell City Clerk Jane Howington City Manager Planning Department 201 1" Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 758-7940 Fax: (406) 758-7739 www.kaflspell.com/planning March 1, 2010 Jane Howington, City Manager City of Kalispell P.O. Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903 Re: Zoning Text Amendment — Zoning Ordinance Update Dear Jane: The Kalispell City Planning Board met on January 12, 2010, and held a public hearing to consider a request from the City of Kalispell for a zoning text amendment which would revise the zoning ordinance as a whole. The amendment can best be characterized as a significant update of the ordinance which was last updated in its entirety in 1993. The update is also a fine-tuning to make the document more user- friendly and to better reflect the city as it looks today. Kalispell Planning Department staff presented staff report #KZTA-10-01 providing details of the proposal and the evaluation. The proposal used the text developed through seven work sessions with the planning board which occurred over a period of nine months. Staff recommended the board adopt the findings of fact as proposed and recommend to the council that the amendment be adopted. Written comments were submitted by Merna Terry and Charles Lapp. Both also spoke at the public hearing supporting the changes and bringing up several additional issues as well that were addressed by the planning board. Those comments are attached to the draft minutes from the meeting. No one else spoke either for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. A motion was made and seconded to recommend approval of the zoning text amendment. There was a motion to amend the proposal which related to procedure for public hearings for conditional use permits and also changed a reference under architectural review from the Redevelopment Area to "Kalispell." The amendment passed on a 7-0 vote. The main motion was then approved on a 7-0 vote. Please schedule this matter for the appropriate city council meeting. You may contact this board or P.J. Sorensen at the Kalispell Planning Department if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, Kalispell City Planning Board ll\ Bryan H. Schutt President Attachments: Staff report #KZTA-10-01 and application materials Draft minutes of the 1/12/10 planning board meeting Draft zoning ordinance dated January 12, 2010 with markup changes Draft zoning ordinance dated January 12, 2010 clean copy c w/ Att: Theresa White, Kalispell City Clerk CITY OF KALISPELL - ZONING REGULATIONS KALISPELL PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT #KZTA-10-1 JANUARY 12, 2010 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 to update and revise provisions throughout the ordinance. A public hearing has been scheduled before the Planning Board for January 12, 2010, beginning at 7:00 PM in the Kalispell City Council Chambers. The Planning Board will forward a recommendation to the Kalispell City Council for final action The City of Kalispell is proposing a text amendment which would revise the zoning ordinance as a whole. The amendment can best be characterized as an update of the ordinance. The update is a fine-tuning to make the document more user-friendly and to better reflect the City as it looks today. Over the past nine months, the Planning Board has held a series of seven work sessions discussing the update. Throughout the process, staff has taken several steps designed to notify the public and generate input. Architects, builders, developers, community groups, and others were sent letters (about 80 in all) outlining the process and the goals of the update, along with a link to our website. Both a marked -up (i.e. showing additions and deletions) and a clean version of the proposed update have been posted on-line for community review since March. An open house was held on November 19 to answer any questions and receive any comments. Invitations were sent out to the same group which received the earlier mailings, and the Interlake ran an article discussing the update, including an announcement of the open house. Two architects attended the open house to learn more about the changes. At the December 8 Planning Board meeting, the Board approved a motion to bring the proposal forward for formal consideration at a public hearing. A. Petitioner: Jane Howington, City Manager City of Kalispell P.O. Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903 (406) 758-7703 B. Area Effected by the Proposed Changes: Any property within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Kalispell may be affected by the proposed changes. C. Proposed Amendments: The update has included efforts to: Page 1 of 4 (1) Eliminate ambiguities in the text; (2) Improve readability by eliminating outdated terms and simplifying language; (3) Reduce the number of zones by consolidating the RA-2 with the RA-3 multi- family zones and the B-2 with the B-3 business zones; (4) Streamline and standardize property development standards (setbacks, minimum lot sizes, etc); (5) Review the intents of each zone and adjust uses accordingly; (6) Create a matrix which lists all uses by zone for quick reference; (7) Create a single sheet summary of lot size and setbacks by zone for quick reference; (8) Update the definitions section to reflect current terms and uses; (9) Include visuals and pictures in the ordinance to help clarify points (this is on -going); (10) Provide a better connection between the zoning ordinance and the growth policy; (11) Provide a method to allow minor administrative adjustments from some development standards to create a more flexible document; (12) Improve our administrative conditional use permit process which would substantially reduce the time required for the review of certain types of uses; (13) Amend parking regulations in the downtown area by reducing the number of required spaces and protecting residential areas from encroachment by commercial parking lots; and (14) Make minor modifications to existing standards as necessary. The specific changes are included in the attached drafts, which are hereby incorporated by reference. One draft is a "clean" version which provides the full version of the update. The second draft is a "marked -up" version, which includes underlined text (for new language or indicating where sections were moved to) and strike -outs (for deleted language or indicating where sections were moved from). Please note that, while the marked -up version includes the substantive changes which were made, it does not include final editing (e.g. typos, realignment, etc) because the resulting marks tended to be more confusing. 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? One of the stated goals of the update is to strengthen the relationship between the growth policy and the zoning ordinance. For example, the provisions relating to the intent of each zone in the ordinance specifically refer back to the growth policy. Page 2 of 4 2. Is the zonine regulation designed to secure safetv from fire and other dancers? The zoning ordinance includes property development standards. The standards are intended to provide a more consistent development pattern and create on -site improvements which minimize the risk of fire, panic, and other dangers both on a particular property as well as the surrounding area. 3. 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 creating a more predicable, orderly, and consistent environment for both residential and commercial uses. The ordinance also maintains an appropriate separation between non -compatible uses. 4. Is the zoning regulation designed to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, and other public requirements? As mentioned above, 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. S. Does the zoning regulation consider the reasonable provision of adequate light and air? The property development standards help provide for adequate separation between adjacent structures. 6. Does the zoning regulation consider the effect on motorized and nonmotorized transportation systems? The zoning ordinance encourages more orderly development, which tends to improve transportation throughout the city and lessen congestion. 7. Does the zoning regulation consider the promotion of compatible urban growth? The zoning ordinance creates density limitations appropriate for a given area which help prevent the overcrowding of land and undue concentrations of people. By providing appropriate uses within each district and separation between non -compatible uses, the most appropriate use of land throughout the urban area is encouraged. The ordinance also provides a more predicable, orderly, and consistent environment for both residential and commercial uses. 8. Does the zoning regulation consider the character of the district and its peculiar suitability for particular uses? The ordinance assigns zones to properties throughout the city based upon the Page 3 of 4 growth policy, surrounding uses, and the characteristics of the property, including, but not limited to, physical characteristics and available public services. The ordinance takes into consideration the stated intent of each district as the basis for specific standards applicable to properties within the district. 9. Does the zoning regulation consider conserving the value of buildings and encouraging the most appropriate use of land throughout the gurisdictional area? Building values will be conserved by providing reasonable standards within zoning districts by encouraging predictable, orderly, and consistent development within a given area. The ordinance takes into consideration the stated intent of each district as the basis for the allowed uses within the district. By providing appropriate uses within each district and separation between non -compatible uses, the most appropriate use of land throughout the jurisdiction is encouraged. PZI4K4iRMIM• Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board adopt the findings in staff report KZTA-10-1 as revised and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the proposed amendment be adopted as provided herein. PJS Page 4 of 4 FCALISPELL CITY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING 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 passedunanimously on a roll call vote. Steve Eckels, 619 representing himself, urged the board to G elimmate:flwht schoo He reviewed 6 a and added the F Avenue West, Kalispell said he is itizens group called Quiet Skies. He rezoning the city airport property to tt' were developed by his organization y 0,fXalispell have declined to sign 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 Poison'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 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; (0 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 I P.J. Sorensen, representing the Kalispell Planning Department reviewed staff renort'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 reviewed 14 points that summarizes the changes for the ich 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 Terry said the update does make the regulations easier to read and she thanked the board and staff for their time and efforts. ,app, 3230 Columbia Falls Stage Road said he also owns in Kalispell. Lapp referred to the attached letter. His included the following: •- Removal of Manufactured Home Parks from districts e' 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 anal others a slight cost decrease. Hinchey noted another thinaAhe board wastrying 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 I 27.34030(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 regar staff thinks that instead. The boa further. Hinchey asked if the categories by zone Sorensen said yes, att those tools to be extre -eference to the "Redevelopment Area" deleted and it should reference Kalispell to that amendment. Sorensen explained ,lopment standards and the revised use d be included in the document and as an appendix. Hinchey said he found 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 staffs 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 "Kalispeir, 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 8`h 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 mimediately 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. Bryan H. Schutt President APPROVED as submitted/corrected: 1 /10 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 our total, h-usfed 6aitder Ps - ajore able homes 7 Meridian Court - Kalispell, MT 59901- (406) 755-7516- Fax (406) 755-1546 www.ronterryconstruction.com January 11, 2010 D E C E O V IR ' City of Kalispell Planning Eoard JAIN 112010 201 1st Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 KALISPI=LL PLANNING DEPARTMENT Dear City of Kalispell Planning Board, 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. 1 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