08. Ordinance 1305 - Zoning Text Amendment - Michael Hanchett - 1st ReadingORDINANCE N0. 1305
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 27.16.020 OF THE KALISPELL ZONING
ORDINANCE, (ORDINANCE NO. 1175), BY ALLOWING SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCES, DUPLEXES AND MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENCES AS A PERMITTED USE
IN THE B-4, CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, Michael Hanchett has submitted a written request to
amend Section 27.16.020 of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, by
requesting that single-family residences, duplexes and multi -family
residences be allowed as a permitted use in the B-4, Central
Business District, and
WHEREAS, the request was forwarded to the Kalispell City -
County Planning Board and Zoning Commission by the Flathead
Regional Development Office after having been evaluated under
27.16.020, Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, and
WHEREAS, FRDO evaluated the requested text amendment and
recommended, per Report #KZTA-99-3, that single-family residences,
duplexes and multi -family residences be allowed as a permitted use
in the B-4, Central Business District, and
WHEREAS, the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning
Commission recommended that the text of the Kalispell Zoning
Ordinance be amended to establish that single-family residences,
duplexes and multi -family residences be allowed as a permitted use
in the B-4, Central Business District, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the FRDO Report and the
transmittal from the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and
Zoning Commission and hereby adopts the findings made in Report
#KZTA-99-3 as the Findings of Fact applicable to this Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF KALISPELL AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. The City of Kalispell Zoning Ordinance,
Ordinance No. 1175, is hereby amended as
follows:
1305hanchtexamend.wpd 1
Section 27.16.020: Permitted Uses.
...(63) Single family residences, duplexes and multi-
family residences
SECTION II. All parts and portions of Ordinance No. 1175
not amended hereby remain unchanged.
SECTION III. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30)
days after its final passage.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND SIGNED BY THE
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL THIS DAY OF ,
1999.
--Wm E . Boharski
Mayor
ATTEST:
Theresa White
Clerk of Council
1305hanchtexamend.wpd 2
Flathead Regional Development Office
723 5th Avenue East - Room 414
KaropelI, Montana 59901
Phone: (406) 758-5980
Fax: (406) 758-5781
March 12, 1999
Al Thelen, Interim City Manager
City of Kalispell
P.O. Box 1997
Kalispell, MT 59903
Re: Zoning Text Amendment for inclusion of 'single-family residences, duplexes
and multi -family residences' as a permitted use in Section 27.16.020.
Dear Al:
The Kalispell City -County Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, March
9, 1999 and held a public hearing on a request by Michael Hanchett for a text
amendment to Section 27.15.020 of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. The proposed
amendments are intended to ._allow "single-family residences, duplexes and multi-
family residences' as a permitted use in the B-4, Central Business District.
Narda Wilson with the Flathead Regional Development Office presented a staff report
and discussed the issues related to the petition. She stated that the staff supported
the proposal and recommend approval of the proposed text amendment
During the public hearing, Randy Snyder, attorney for the petitioner, spoke in favor of
the proposed amendment stating that this would allow the current residence owners
in the commercial area to remodel or rebuild their homes. A letter in favor of the
petition from Sandie Mueller was entered into record. No one spoke in opposition.
The Board discussed the recommendations made by the staff, adopted staff report
#KZTA-99-3 findings of fact and, based on these findings, a motion was made and
approved by unanimous vote to forward a recommendation to the City Council to
approve the amendments to the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance as presented in Exhibit
`A'
Please schedule this matter for the next regular City Council meeting. Please contact
this Board or the Flathead Regional Development Office if you have any questions
regarding this proposal.
g Board
Providing Community Planning Assistance To:
• Flathead County • City of Columbia Falls • City of Kalispell • City of Whitefish •
Zoning Tent Amendment - Michael Hanchett
March 12, 1999
Page 2
JJ/NW/tl
Attachments: FRDO Report #KZTA-99-3/Application Materials
Draft minutes of the meeting of March 9, 1999
c w/Att: Theresa White, Kalispell City Clerk
Michael Hanchett, 145 Fifth Street West, Kalispell, MT 59901
c: Randall A. Snyder, Attorney at Law
Snyder Law Office, PO Box 717, Bigfork, MT 59911
H:... \'tRANSMrr\KALISPEL\ 1999\KZrA99-1
before coming to the planning board or the city.
Tom Jentz explained to the board members that the DNRC is
setting up a relationship with the board the city and the county
and is asking that the master plan be amended in respect to the
land so that they would be able to plan developmentally and then
there would not be incremental development.
Stevens asked who has the final authority on plan and
development of the trust land.
Dahlberg explained that this process has never been done before
and that the DNRC administrators, legal staff and Commissioners
are familiar with this plan, as is the Board of Land
Commissioners. The intent is to work toward a better system for
the use of trust lands that will give the community a plan that
they are in agreement with and meets as much as possible the
Master Plan for the area and yet still meets the directives by the
state.
In response to further questions from the board, Jentz noted that
the board should, if they choose to move forward, continue the
application to the next meeting and direct the staff to prepare a
resolution.
MOTION Stevens moved and Sipe seconded to continue this process for 30
days (to the next regular meeting). On a roll call vote: Hines,
Stevens, Mann, Sipe and Johnson voted Aye. Heinecke and
Garberg voted No. The motion passed on a vote of 5-2 in favor of
continuation. The staff was directed to prepare a resolution to be
presented at the next regular meeting.
HANCHETT ZONE A request by Michael Hanchett for an amendment to the Kalispell
AMENDMENT Zoning Ordinance, to allow single family, duplex and multi -family
residential uses as permitted uses in the B-4, Central Business
District.
STAFF REPORT Narda Wilson, Senior Planner, gave a presentation of staff report
#KZTA-99-3 in which staff supports the petition and recommends
that the Board adopt the reports as findings of fact and
recommend to the Kalispell City Council to allow single-family
residences, duplexes and multi -family dwellings as a permitted
use in the B-4, Central Business.
PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the petition.
PROPONENTS Randy Snyder, representing the petitioner, spoke in favor of the
application, citing that the petitioner has owned the property for a
number of years and has used it'as a rental property. He noted
Kalispell City County Planning Board
Minutes of meeting March 9, 1999
Page 4 of 9
that the rental is in extreme disrepair and, based on their
research and recommendations, they chose to request a text
amendment for the permitted use of residences in the
commercially zoned area. This would allow for improvements to
current residences in the area without causing any impact to the
neighborhood, the plan or the long range goals of the area.
Wilson presented a letter received at FRDO from Sandie Mueller
in support of the petition and outlined the comments in the letter.
OPPONENTS No one wished to speak in opposition to the petition and the
hearing was closed.
BOARD DISCUSSION The Board discussed the application and found that the petition
did meet the requirements and intent of the Master Plan.
MOTION Heinecke moved, and Mann seconded, to adopt staff report
#KZTA-99-3 as findings of fact and, based on these findings,
recommend to the Kalispell City Council to allow single-family
residences, duplexes and multi -family dwellings as a permitted
use In the B-4, Central Business District. On a roll call vote all
members voted Aye. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0 in favor.
DELORIS A request by Deloris Partnership Group for an amendment to the
PARTNERSHIP GROUP Kalispell Zoning Ordinance to allow mini storage and recreational
ZONING AXENDMENT vehicle storage as a conditionally permitted use in the B-2,
General Business District.
STAFF REPORT Narda Wilson gave a presentation of staff report #KZTA-99-1 in
which staff recommends that the Kalispell City -County Planning
Board recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the mini -
storage units and recreational vehicle storage be listed as a
conditionally permitted use in the B-2, General Business, district
along with the development standards outlined in Exhibit B.
PUBLIC HEARING: The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the proposed
zone change.
PROPONENTS Bill Rice, Box 2427, Kalispell, spoke in favor of the petition.
OPPONENTS No one wished to speak against the petition and the public
hearing was closed.
BOARD DISCUSSION Upon questioning, Wilson noted that this would be a Conditional
Use so each situation would have to come before the board for the
issuance of a permit.
The Board discussed the application and found that it met the
statutory criteria.
Kalispell City County Planning Board
Minutes of meeting March 9, 1999
Page 5 of 9
MICHAEL HANCHETT
REQUEST FOR ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TO B-4 DISTRICT
FLATHEAD REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICE
STAFF REPORT #KZTA-99-3
MARCH 2, 1999
A report to the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and the Kalispell City Council
regarding a request for a text amendment. A public hearing has been scheduled before
the Kalispell City -County Planning Board for March 9, 1999 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.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The applicants are proposing to amend Section 27.16.020 of the Kalispell Zoning
Ordinance, permitted uses in the B-4, Central Business District, by including single-
family residences, duplexes and multi -family residences as a permitted use.
A. Petitioners: Michael Hanchett
145 Fifth Street West
Kalispell, MT 59901
Technical Assistance: Randall A. Snyder, Attorney at Law
Snyder Law Office
P.O. Box 717
Bigfork, MT 59911
(406)837-4383
B. Area Effected by the Proposed Changes: Any area within the Kalispell city limits
which might be zoned B-4, Central Business, would potentially be effected by the
proposed change. The current B-4 regulations are attached on Exhibit A.
C. Proposed Amendments: The applicants are proposing a text amendment to the
central business zoning district regulations which would include single-family
dwelling, duplexes and multi -family dwellings as permitted uses in the 13-4 zoning
district.
D. Staff Discussion: As outlined in the letter dated February 11, 1999 from Randall
Snyder, attorney representing Mr. Hanchett, the applicants own a residence on the
corner of Fifth Street West between First Avenue West and Second Avenue West.
The property is zoned B-4, Central Business District, which does not allow
residential uses. This makes there residence non -conforming. Non -conforming
residences become problematic in the older areas of Kalispell where there are
primarily residential structures, some of which have been converted to offices or
small businesses, many of which have not. Furthermore, the zoning regulations
do not allow substantial modifications, expansion or replacement of non-
conforming uses. The applicants would like to replace the home on the property
and considered rezoning the property to a residential zoning designation. However,
given the location of the property, it seemed more feasible to apply for a zoning text
amendment. This was discussed among the FRDO and City staff and there was
general support for the proposal.
Most of the B-4 zoning in Kalispell is located within the downtown core along Main
Street and then to the east and west approximately two blocks and to the north
and south several blocks. This B-4 area includes the Kalispell Center Mall, Depot
Park and Tidymans. This proposal would affect all of this downtown area by
allowing more residential uses. Currently, the only residential uses allowed in the
B-4 are "Dwellings, multi -family above the first story" under permitted uses.
The staff encouraged the applicant to expand the proposal from simply single -
fan -lily to include duplex and mutli-family. Additionally, there may be some merit
to allowing businesses and residences to occupy the same building or possibly a
business with a detached dwelling so that an individual could have a business and
home on the same property. However, the consideration at hand would be the
proposal to allow residential uses in the B-4 zoning district as a stand alone
permitted use. Potential advantages of the proposed amendments include the
following:
• housing is common existing uses in the district and a traditional, compatible
land use in town centers;
• expand opportunities to meet the growing demand for a variety of housing types;
• promote transportation efficiency and pedestrian circulation by placing housing,
jobs, and shopping in close proximity to each other in a town center;
• promote efficient use of existing infrastructure and services;
• expand the customer base of businesses in the B-4 district.
Residential uses are proposed as a permitted use in the B-4 district, but may not be
appropriate in other more intensive commercial districts because of potential land
use conflicts of placing single-family houses in a high intensity, business -oriented
setting. In contrast, the B-4 district already has may existing single-family houses
and some multi -family, primarily in relatively buffered areas between the commercial
core and the historical residential areas to the east and west.
One potential problem with the amendments could be parking congestion. Retail
businesses tend to need convenient short-term parking with 15 minute turnover and
residents need longer -term parking. The zoning specifically addresses this issue by
requiring ample parking for housing of two spaces per dwelling, plus one additional
visitor space per four multi -family dwellings.
No density limits on multi family housing would be required since housing density
would be limited by the square footage of the property and its ability to accommodate
parking. Another option would be to require conditional use review for multi -family
dwellings and dwellings in mixed -use buildings in order to provide for review of
suitable design and potential density limitations. The B-4 district places few limits on
building mass by allowing a 72 foot height limit and no setbacks.
EVALUATION BASED ON STATUTORY CRITERIA
The statutory basis for reviewing a change in zoning is set forth by 76-2-205, M.C.A.
Findings of Fact for the zone change request are discussed relative to the itemized
criteria described by 76-2-203, M.C.A.
1. Does the requested zone comply with the Master Plan?
The master plan addresses "general commercial" areas as occurring and expanding
in the central business district and also continued growth in the Gateway West,
Ashley Square and North Meridian areas. They are intended for compact retail
sales, services and office uses. The proposed use meets the intent outlined in the
master plan for providing the type of retail sales and service anticipated to be
associated with a downtown area and the central business district. The proposed
changes comply with the master plan.
OQ
2. Is the requested zone designed to lessen congestion in the streets?
The proposed zoning would lessen community -wide congestion in the streets by
facilitating pedestrian access. The proposed amendment would concentrate housing,
jobs, and shopping within walking distance of each other, thus increasing pedestrian
and bicycle access and reducing vehicle trips. The proposed uses would not
typically generate impacts beyond the types of impacts associated with other uses
allowed in the B-4 zoning district. The proposed changes would lessen congestion
in the streets.
3. Will the requested zone secure safety from fire, panic, and other dangers?
Substantial housing already exists in the B-4 district, and a mix of housing would be
generally compatible and consistent with the high -impact, town -center character of
the B-4 district. Public safety and security would not be compromised as a result of
the proposed amendments. The B-4 district is centrally located for convenient access
to emergency services. Furthermore, the addition of housing in town centers has
been supported in many communities for improving security and safety, essentially
by putting more eyes on the street during evenings and weekends.
4. Will the requested change promote the health and general welfare?
The general health and welfare of the public will be promoted by encouraging the
appropriate use of compatible land resources. The B-4 amendments would promote
the general welfare of the community by expanding housing opportunities to meet
market demand, promoting efficiency of transportation and public services, and
expanding the customer base of town -center business districts, concentrating like
uses within established commercial districts.
5. Will the requested zone provide for adequate light and air?
The amendments would not significantly affect the adequacy of light and air between
buildings. The B-4 has no setback requirements. Light and air between
surrounding buildings would not be impacted in a manner inconsistent with
anticipated commercial development typically associated with uses in the district.
6. Will the requested zone prevent the overcrowding of land or undue concentration
of people?
The requested zoning would prevent the overcrowding of land, since the B-4 district is
already anticipated to have a high -intensity character and adequate access and
services for high -density development, thereby reducing potential development
impacts of housing construction on less developable lands elsewhere. Associated
impacts would not lead to the undue concentration of people or overcrowding of
land. The B-4 district anticipates a high concentration of people, and therefore the
amendment would avoid undue concentration. As discussed above, consideration
may be given to requiring a conditional use permit for multi -family housing and
dwellings in mixed use buildings in the B-4 district, which would allow for review of
density on a case -by -case basis.
7. Will the requested zone facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water,
sewerage, schools, parks, and other public requirements?
The B-4 district anticipates adequate infrastructure and services to accommodate
medium to high density urban development, and therefore the B-4 amendment would
Centrally meet this objective. Schools and parks are located within walking distance
3
of the B-4 district. Public sewer and water are available in the B-4 district. As
proposed, the uses would require full urban services and facilities and use of
services than would be anticipated as with other permitted uses.
8. Does the requested zone give consideration to the particular suitability of the
property for particular uses?
The B-4 amendments would allow for residential uses in that district which give
consideration to the particular suitability of the property for particular uses because of
the location of urban amenities, efficient use of transportation and the generally low
impact use of residences. As discussed above, consideration may be given to requiring
a conditional use permit for multi -family housing and dwelling in mixed use buildings
in the B-4 district, which would allow for review of site suitability on a case -by -case
basis.
9. Does the requested zone give reasonable consideration to the character of the
district?
The changes give adequate consideration to the character of theB-4 district, and a
mix of housing would be generally compatible and consistent with the high -impact,
town -center character of the B-4 district. The amendments encourage compatible
uses and give recognition to the historical residential uses inherent in the B-4 district.
10. Will the proposed zone conserve the value of buildings?
The proposed B-4 amendments would conserve the value of buildings by providing for
traditionally compatible land uses (housing) in town centers and allowing expansion of
existing residential dwellings by right. This would generally conserve the value of
buildings particularly existing residences in the district which are considered non-
conforming uses.
11. Will the requested zone encourage the most appropriate use of the land
throughout the jurisdiction?
The proposed B-4 amendments would encourage the most appropriate use of land
throughout the jurisdiction by encouraging the generally high -intensity character of
town centers, promoting efficiency of transportation and public services, expanding
housing opportunities to meet market demand, expanding the customer base of
businesses in the B-4 district, and reinforcing the vitality of the town center area.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Kalispell City -County Planning Board adopt FRDO staff report
#KZTA-99-3 as findings of fact and, based on these findings, recommend to the Kalispell
City Council to allow single-family residences, duplexes and multi -family dwellings as a
permitted use in the B-4, Central Business.
H: \... \KZTA\99 \KZTA99-3
11
EXHIBIT A
CHAPTER 27.16
B-4 - CENTRAL BUSINESS
Sections:
27.16.010 Intent
27.16.020 Permitted Uses
27.16.030 Uses Which May Be Permitted By Conditional Use Permit
27.16.040 Property Development Standards
27.16.010: Intent. A business district to set apart that portion of the city which
forms the center for financial, commercial, governmental, professional
and cultural activities. This district is not intended for general
application throughout the planning area.
27.16.020: Permitted Uses.
(1). Artist studio with incidental sales.
(2). Athletic club.
(3). Automobile parking, commercial or public.
(4). Bakery/deli, wholesale/retail.
(5). Banks/savings and loans/finance and loan companies.
(6). Barber and beauty services.
(7). Bar, tavern, cocktail lounge, clubs.
(8). Candy products manufacture, retail on premises.
(9). Car wash, automobile detailing shop.
(10). Catering establishments.
(11) . Chemical dependency/ substance abuse clinic
(outpatient only).
(12). Chiropractic clinic.
(13). Church/worship/parish/Sunday school buildings.
(14). Clinics, medical and dental.
(15). Coin and/or stamp dealers, lapidaries.
(16). College/business/trade/music/dance schools - no
student residence.
(17). Counseling center for the physically or mentally
disabled.
(18). Daisy bar/ice cream manufacturing, retail on premises.
(19). Day care center (see definition).
(20). Denturist.
(21). Department stores.
(22). Dwellings, multi -family above first story.
(23). Food processing/retail on premise - no kill/dress of
flesh/fowl.
(24). Food store/supermarket, etc. - no slaughtering of
flesh/fowl.
(25). Food stores, retail/under 3,000 square feet.
(26). Fruit/wine bar.
(27). Furriers, retail sales and storage.
(28). Glazier.
(29). Hotel, motel.
5
(30). Insurance office and/or claims centers.
(31). Investment firms.
(32). Janitor supplies/services/contracting.
(33). Jewelry/watch repair and sales.
(34). Launderette/dry cleaning, customer self service.
(35). Life styling center.
(36). Liquor store.
(37). Locksmiths or gunsmiths.
(38). Lodges/fraternal and social organizations, non-profit.
(39). Massage parlor.
(40). - Music education with related performance and limited
sales.
(41). Newspaper office.
(42). Office, professional/governmental.
(43). Office equipment, supplies/sales/service.
(44). Opticians/optical supplies sales.
(45). Parks.
(46). Pawn shops (no outside storage/display).
(47). Pet shops.
(48). Pharmacy.
(49). Photographic studios.
(50). Plumbing/heating materials, retail/service only.
(51). Post office - main distribution center.
(52). Post office - satellite or neighborhood.
(53). Prepared food delivery facilities.
(54). Printing/publishing/reproduction/blueprinting/photo-
stating establishments.
(55). Produce stand.
(56). Real estate sales offices.
(57). Recreational area, commercial and non-commercial.
(58). Repair/service-office/household equipment.
(59). Restaurants.
(60). Retail business (see definition).
(61). Second hand stores (see definition).
(62). Shoe repair.
(63). Ski rental shop.
(64). Tailors/dressmakers/milliners.
(65). Take and bake prepared food facility.
(66). Telecommunication companies and/or radio common
carriers.
(67). Theaters in permanent indoor structures.
(68). Title company.
(69). Travel agency.
(71). undertaking/mortuaries/funeral homes/parlors.
(72). Variety stores.
(73). Veterinary clinic, small animals.
27.16.030: Uses Which May Be Permitted By Conditional Use Permit.
(1). Assembly halls/coliseums/stadiums/convention hall
facilities.
(2). Automobile sales.
(3). Automobile rental agency.
(4). Automobile repair garages, excluding body shops.
(5). Automobile service station (see definition).
(6). Bus passenger terminal buildings, transit terminals.
1.1
(7). Casino.
(8). Drive-in banking facility.
(9). Electrical distribution station.
(10). Hostel, youth.
(11). Law enforcement/fire stations.
(12). Libraries, museums, and similar cultural facilities.
(13). Mini -brewery.
(14). Quasi -public buildings, non-profit in character.
(15). Railroad rights -of -way.
(16). Schools, commercial (see definition).
(17). Shelter, public or private.
(18). Temporary building/structure.
(19). Transmission towers and accessory facilities.
(20). Water storage facilities.
27.16.040: Property Development Standards.
(1). Minimum Lot Area: N/A
(2). Minimum Lot Width (FT): N/A
(3). Minimum Yards (FT):
Front Yard - N/A
Side Yard - N/A
Side Corner - N/A
Rear Yard - N/A
(4). Maximum Building Height (F n: 72
(5). Permitted Lot Coverage (%): N/A
(6). Off -Street Parking: Refer to Sections 27.26 and 27.27.
(7). Maximum Fence Heights (FT):
Front - 0
Side - 0
Rear - 0
7
is
2
3.
4,
S.
Flathead Regional Development Office
723 51h Ave. East Room 414 ',,NPL;CAT 1r�_;
Kalispell, MT 59901
Phone: (406)758-5980 Fax: (406)758-5781 _
PETITION FOR ZONING AMENDMENT -
CITY OF KALISPELL
F. R (D
Michael Hanchett, by Randall A. Snyder,
NAME OF APPLICANT: Attorney At r. a�
MAIL ADDRESS: P.O. Box it l
CITY/STATE/ZIP:Bigfork, MT 59911 PHONE: 837 - 4383
INTEREST IN PROPERTY: Attorney for owner, —_
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT: ZONING TIE—= AMENDMEN'C: xX —
IF THE REQUEST PERTAINS TO AN AMENDMENT TO THE TEX r OF THII
ZONING REGULATIONS, PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING:
A. Z. hat is the proposed zoning text amendment?
Ada "dwellings., singLe fami 1y. "
in the B 4 District -he)N
IF THE THE REQUEST PERTAINS TO AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MA:?,
PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING:
A. Address of the property:_._.._.-
B. Legal Description: --•-_--
(Lot and Block of Subdivision; Tract #)
(Section, Township, Range) (Attach sheet for metes and bounds)
C. The present zoning of the above property is:
D. The proposed zoning of the above property is:
E. State the changed or changing conditions that make the proposed
amendment necessary:
1
N
HOW WILL THE PROPOSED CHANGE ACCOMPLISH THE INTENT AND PURPOSE
OF:
A. Promoting the Master Plan This area is within Kalispell City and
is designated rural or suburban in the Master Plan. Allowing
existing residences to continue or be replaced with residences
is consistent with the '.Master Plan.
B. Lessening congestion in the streets and providing safe access There are already
mixed dwelling's .in commercial use in the B 4 District. There
will be no change in congestion or access.
C. Promoting safety from fire, panic and other dangers _
There should be no change_
D. Promoting the public interest, health, comfort, convenience, safety and general
welfare There should be no change.
E. Preventing the overcrowding of land There should be no change. If
anything, allowing continued single family dwellings will
lessen overcrowding and congestion than if the same use is
commercial.
F. Avoiding undue concentration of population Again, residential use as _
a sinqle family dwellinq is less concentrated than commercial
use.
G. Facilitating the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewage, schools,
Parks and other public facilities There would be no change or impact_
to any public facilities since this will merely sanction
existinq_siAle family dwellings. It is unlikely a commercial
use will be converted to residential use.
2
H. Giving reasonable consideration to the character of the district Area B 4
is already mixed commercial and re.q; (JPnt-; ai AlI nwinq
continued residential use iL cn a;stPnt with the charartpr
of the district.
I. Giving consideration to the peculiar suitability of the property for particular
uses The "fringe" oe borderline areas of District B 4 are almost
exclusively residential. They are more suited towarrd
residential use.
J. Protecting and conserving the value of buildings This will be enhance
in order to facilitate remodeling, repair or replacement
of existing residential structures.
K. Encouraging the most appropriate use of land by assuring orderly growth
This will allow a "phase in" of commercial use into remaining
borderline residential areas. Residences may continue to
exist, but incremental commercial development can continue
unabated.
The signing of this application signifies approval for F.R.D.O. stab` to be present on
the property for routine monitoring and inspection during approval process.
,1
lG �ji-I ..in,
(Applicant)
MICHAEL HANCHETTi by
NDA A. SNYDER
sel for applicant
/�/ 5-
(Date)
3
SNYDER IAW OFFICE
Randall A. Snyder, P.C.
Michael T. Morton attorney at law
Paralegal P.O. Box 717 - 8090 Hwy. 35
Bigfork, MT 59911
(4-06) 837-41383 February 11, 1999
Narda Wilson
Flathead Regional Development Office
723 5th Avenue East, Room 414
Kalispell, Montana 59901 Via Fax 758-5781
Re: Michael Hanchett Petition for zoning amendment
Dear Narda:
Tana. G. Toren
Paralegal
Fax (406) 8374385
E-mail: rsnyder,@ptinet.net
VEg 12 19'QQ
Thanks for speaking with me on Monday, February 8, 1999. At that time, I filed Mr.
Hanchett's petition for zoning amendment in the B-4 District. At your suggestion, I added the
language, "including rental and multi -family dwellings" to Paragraph 5A. I also dropped off some
photographs of Mr. Hanchett's property.
Here is some background. The Hanchett's residence, located at 145 5th Street West (Lot 13,
Block 74) is a single family dwelling. It is situated on the Northeast corner of 5th Street West and
Second Avenue West. Probably some time ago, Lot 13 was split, with the Hanchett residence
occupying the West 1/3. A separate residence now occupies the East 2/3 of the lot. The photographs
also show that this is a residential neighborhood, with actual businesses beginning 1 to 2 blocks
away. The B-4 Zoning District runs south along Second Avenue West in the 400 block, then turns
east along 5th Street West for 1 1/2 blocks, then goes south again. Hanchett residence is on the
southwest comer of the B-4 Zoning District. Right across the road, in two direction is the RA-1
Zoning District.
The photographs show a reasonably -well kept home. However, the structure is old, tired and
cannot justify major maintenance or remodeling. Mr. Hanchett would like to demolish and rebuild
a home that would be more efficient and up to current residential code.
Mr. Hanchett approached the city zoning administrator with this idea in 1998, however, given
existing zoning requirements, complete demolition would preclude reconstruction as a residence.
That would seem to make little sense when the house is clearly in a residential neighborhood.
I approached P.J. Sorenson, the present zoning administrator, in order to brainstorm possible
solutions. He in turn contacted you. The initial thought was to attempt to rezone all of the Second
Avenue West residences in the 400 block, and move the B-4/RA-1 boundary east by 1/2 block, into
the alley. This configuration appears both north and south of the subject property.
While I did not anticipate much objection to such a proposal by the affected property owners,
I am aware that gerrymandering of zoning boundaries can be problematic. Thus, it was suggested
that the B-4 District be amended to include any presently non -conforming residential homes. Indeed
Narda Wilson
February 11, 1999
Page 3
that would resolve the problem, not just for Mr. Hanchett, but for all affected property owners. I
have therefore prepared and filed the petition for zoning amendment, which was filed Monday. I
am familiar with the process. I understand that your office will prepare a staff report and
recommendation. The matter will proceed to the Planning Board and thence to the Commissioners.
Thank you for your advice and assistance.
Sincerely,,'
RAS/mwf
cc: Michael Hanchett
FAfiles\nw2I I99
March 9, 1999
To the Kalispell City -County Planning Board:
My name is Sandie Mueller and I live at 421 2nd Ave West, 3 houses north of Mr.
Hanchett. When I bought my home in 1992 I was aware that it was zoned B-4 and a
non -conforming use, but I didn't fully understand the limitations the zoning placed on
my residence. My home is very small, 678 sf on the first floor, and 325 sf of
unfinished basement; the lot is approximately 25' by 150'. I first became aware that I
could not expand my home in late 1992 when I told a co-worker that I would like to
enclose my front and back porch. He told me that I couldn't because of it's non-
conforming status, and suggested that I talk to Craig Kerzman at the Building
department. I went down that day and talked to Craig. He confirmed that I was not
allowed to enclose my porches, have an oriel window seat, or any thing else that would
increase my livable space. I told Craig I wasn't planning on living on my porches
which are 3' by 6% I only wanted some protection from the elements. He told me he
understood, but the zoning prevented it. I also found out that if my home were
destroyed more that 50% I could not rebuild it as a residence, nor can I replace my
one horse garage, which is listing badly and is an eyesore. Needless to say, I `was
crushed. I bought my home with the dream of perhaps someday expanding it. My
bathroom is so small that when you sit on the john your left arm is touching
the sink and your right knee is up against the bathtub!!!
I have a considerable investment in my home, as we all do. Last March I had a new
roof put on, new insulation and siding, and new windows and doors installed; in
October I had a new furnace system and ducting installed. I'm am not asking to
expand my home into a palace, I only want to be able to enclose my porches from the
elements and have some place to put my winter boots and coats; I would like to also
replace my falling down garage. This is a privilege that other residential zones enjoy as
a permitted use and I would like to enjoy the same privilege, comforted in the
knowledge that if my house is destroyed I could rebuild it or if finances ever allowed,
to remodel and expand it.
In closing, I ask that you consider this text amendment carefully and recommend
approval of it to the City Council.
I thank you for your consideration.
,&,-
Sandie Mueller
421 2nd Avenue West
Kalispell MT 59901
257-8211