Loading...
07. Ordinance 1315 - Zoning Text Amendment - Ockey - 1st ReadingFlathead Regional Development Office 723 5th Avenue East - Room 414 Kalispell, Montana 59901 Phone: (406) 758-5980 Fax: (406) 758-5781 REPORT TO: Kalispell Mayor and City Council FROM: Narda A. Wilson, Senior Planner Chris A. Kukulski, City Manager SUBJECT Text amendment to the side yard setbacks in the RA-1 zoning district -Richard Ockey MEETING DATE: June 7, 1999 BACKGROUND: This is a request to amend the side yard setbacks in the RA-1, Low Density Residential Apartment, district from the current requirement of ten feet plus an additional ten feet for buildings over 25 feet in height.. The staff recommended approval of an amendment which would require ten feet plus an additional five feet for each five feet over 25 feet for structures located in the setback area. Staff also recommended including this amendment in the RA-2, High Density Residential Apartment District, and RA-3, Residential Apartment / Office, for consistency. This could potentially effect all areas of the city zoned RA-1, RA-2 and RA-3, but would primarily effect the Buffalo Stage area. This matter went to the planning board for public hearing and consideration on May 11, 1999. The planning board is recommending that the amendment be approved as recommended by staff on a vote of five in favor and four opposed. The votes in opposition were because these members believed there should not be an additional setback requirement, but simply a ten foot side yard setback. RECOMMENDATION: A motion to adopt the ordinance amending the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance for the RA-1, RA-2 and RA-3 side yard setback requirements would be in order. FISCAL EFFECTS: None. ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the city council. i 3�L C"A� L�&\ Narda A. ils n Chris A. Kukulski Senior Planner City Manager Report compiled: May 17, 1999 Attachments: Letter of transmittal Staff report KZTA-99-4 and back-up materials Draft planning board minutes Providing Community Planning Assistance To: • Flathead County • City of Columbia Falls • City of Kalispell • City of Whitefish • ORDINANCE NO. 1315 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 27.09.040(3) OF THE KALISPELL ZONING ORDINANCE, (ORDINANCE NO. 1175), BY AMENDING THE MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM TEN FEET TO TEN FEET PLUS FIVE ADDITIONAL FEET FOR EACH INCREMENT OF FIVE FEET ABOVE 25 FEET IN HEIGHT IN THE RA-1, RA-2, AND RA-3 ZONING DISTRICTS, AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Richard Ockey has submitted a written request to amend Section 27.09.040(3) of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, by reducing the minimum side yard setback from ten feet to ten feet plus one additional foot for each foot over 25 feet in height in the RA-1, Low Density Residential Apartment 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 27.09.040(3), Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, and WHEREAS, FRDO evaluated the requested text amendment and recommended, per Report #KZTA-99-4, that the minimum side yard setback be amended from ten feet to ten feet plus five additional feet for each increment of five feet above 25 feet in height in the RA-1, RA-2, and RA-3 Zoning Districts, 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 the minimum side yard setback from ten feet to ten feet plus five additional feet for each increment of five feet above 25 feet in height in the RA-1, RA-2, and RA-3 Zoning Districts, 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-99-4 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: RA-1 side yard ta.wpd 1 Section 27.09.040: Property Development Standards. ... (3) Minimum Yards (FT) : Side Yard - 10 + 5 additional feet for each increment of 5 feet above 25 feet in height. Section 27.10.040: Property Development Standards. ...(3) Minimum Yards (FT): Side Yard - 10 + 5 additional feet for each increment of 5 feet above 25 feet in height. Section 27.11.040: Property Development Standards. ...(3) Minimum Yards (FT): Side Yard - 10 + 5 additional feet for each increment of 5 feet above 25 feet in height. 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 JUNE, 1999. Wm E. Boharski Mayor ATTEST: Theresa White City Clerk RA-1 side yard ta.wpd 2 ORDINANCE NO. 1315A AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 27.09.040(3) OF THE KALISPELL ZONING ORDINANCE, (ORDINANCE NO. 1175), BY AMENDING THE MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM TEN FEET TO TEN FEET IN THE RA-1, RA-2, AND RA-3 ZONING DISTRICTS, AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Richard Ockey has submitted a written request to amend Section 27.09.040(3) of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, by reducing the minimum side yard setback from ten feet to ten feet plus one additional foot for each foot over 25 feet in height in the RA-1, Low Density Residential Apartment 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 27.09.040(3), Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, and WHEREAS, FRDO evaluated the requested text amendment and recommended, per Report #KZTA-99-4, that the minimum side yard setback be amended from ten feet to ten feet plus five additional feet for each increment of five feet above 25 feet in height in the RA-1, RA-2, and RA-3 Zoning Districts, and WHEREAS, dissenting votes on the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission recommended a side yard set back of 10 feet, 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 the minimum side yard setback from ten feet to ten feet plus five additional feet for each increment of five feet above 25 feet in height in the RA-1, RA-2, and RA-3 Zoning Districts, 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-99-4 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: RA-1 side yard to A.wpd 1 SECTION I. The City of Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No. 1175, is hereby amended as follows: Section 27.09.040: Property Development Standards. ... (3) Minimum Yards (FT) : Side Yard - 10 feet Section 27.10.040: Property Development Standards. ... (3 ) Minimum Yards (FT) : Side Yard - 10 feet Section 27.11.040: Property Development Standards. ...(3) Minimum Yards (FT): Side Yard - 10 feet 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 JUNE, 1999. Wm E. Boharski Mayor ATTEST: Theresa White City Clerk RA-1 side yard to A.wpd 2 Flathead Regional Development Office 723 5th Avenue East - Room 414 Kalispell, Montana 59901 Phone: (406) 758-5980 Fax: (406) 758-5781 May 17, 1999 Chris Kukulski, City Manager City of Kalispell - P.O. Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903 Re: Zoning Text Amendment - Side Yard Setbacks in the RA-1 District Dear Chris: The Kalispell City -County Planning Board met on May 11, 1999 and held a public hearing on a request by Richard Ockey for an amendment to the side yard setback requirements in the RA-1, Low Density Residential Apartment, district. The Ockeys own property in the Buffalo Stage area and are having problems building their house. The request is to change the current side yard setback requirement of ten feet plus an additional ten feet for building over 25 feet in height to ten feet plus and addition foot for each foot over 25 feet. Narda Wilson, with the Flathead Regional Development Office, presented a staff report and noted the issues related to the request. She stated that the staff supports an amendment to the side yard setback requirements in the RA-1 district, but is recommending that the setbacks be changed to ten feet plus an additional five feet for each five feet over 25 feet for structures located in the setback area to allow some room for error. Staff is also recommending that these changes be applied to the RA-2, High Density Residential, and the RA-3, Residential Apartment / Office, district for consistency in the regulations. She stated that this amendment addresses a problematic situation in all of the residential apartment zoning districts. During the public hearing, Richard Ockey spoke in favor of the proposal stating that this amendment is required in order for him to build his home as planned. Kevin Orick spoke in favor of the five foot additional setback increments, stating that he would not be in favor of the foot to foot ratio setback. No one spoke in opposition. The board discussed the proposal. A motion was made to adopt staff report KZTA-99-4 and recommend approval of the changes to the city council. The motion passed on a vote of five in favor and four opposed. Those members voting in opposition favored a straight ten foot setback with no additional setback being required because of building height. Please schedule this matter for the June 7, 1999 regular city council meeting. Please contact this Board or Narda Wilson at the Flathead Regional Development Office if you have any questions regarding this recommendation. Providing Community Planning Assistance To: • Flathead County • City of Columbia Falls • City of Kalispell • City of Whitefish • Zoning Text Amendment - Richard Ockey May 17, 1999 Page 2 Sincerely, spell Ci - u P nning Board can Johns n =resident JJ/NW/tl Attachments: Staff report KZTA-99-4 and application materials Draft minutes of the 5/ 11/99 planning board meeting c w/o Att: Richard Ockey, PO Box 872, Kalispell, MT 59903 Theresa White, Kalispell City Clerk H:... \TRANSMIT \ KALISPEL \ 1999 \ KZTA99-4 RICHARD S. OCKEY FLATHEAD REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICE STAFF REPORT #KZTA-99-4 MAY 4, 1999 A report to the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and the Kalispell City Council regarding a request for a text amendment to the RA-1 zoning district. A public hearing has been scheduled before the Kalispell City -County Planning Board for May 11, 1999 beginning at 6:00 PM in the Kalispell City Council Chambers. The Planning Board will forward a recommendation to the Kalispell City Council for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The applicant is proposing to amend Section 27.09.040(3), of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, setbacks in the RA-1, the Low Density Residential Apartment district. A. Petitioner and Owners: Richard S. Ockey P.O. Box 872 Kalispell, MT 59903 (406)755-4502 B. Area Effected by the Proposed Changes: Any area within the Kalispell zoning jurisdiction which might be zoned RA-1, Low Density Residential Apartment, would potentially be effected by the proposed change. The current RA-1 regulations are attached on Exhibit A. As noted in the applicant's attached letter, he owns a lot in Buffalo Stage subdivision which is zoned RA-1. He would like to build a house which is 27 feet in height and is required to provide a 20 foot side yard setback on both sides of the lot for total of 40 feet. The lot is 100 feet wide and the applicant plans on building a house 69 feet wide. The setbacks become problematic. Since the staff has been aware of similar problems in the RA-1 zoning district, primarily for properties in the Buffalo Stage subditi :sion, he was encouraged to apply for a zoning text amendment to try to address this situation and others who may be in a similar situation. C. Proposed Amendments: The applicants are proposing a text amendment to the Low Density Residential Apartment zoning district regulations with the intent to reduce the minimum side yard setback from the current requirement of 10 feet and an additional ten feet for each increment of ten feet above 25 feet in height to ten feet plus one additional foot for each foot over 25 feet in height. D. Staff Discussion: As the board and council may be aware, the staff has had concerns about some elements of the zoning ordinance which would be worthy of amending. This section in the regulations have been problematic in the past particularly in the Buffalo Stage subdivision. This has been problematic because the minimum lot width requirements of the RA-1 zoning district is 60 feet. With even a moderately tall building, i.e. a two story building with a moderately steep pitched roof, the setbacks would be 40 feet, leaving a 20 foot wide building envelope. There is no obvious advantage to discouraging building height and encouraging increased setbacks in this zoning district that warrants these setback requirements. 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. Does the requested zone comply with the Master Plan? Reduced setbacks within an area designated for moderate density is appropriate in order to encourage density, increase flexibility in site design and to allow a reasonable use of smaller parcels of land which are present in many RA-1 zoning district. By reducing the setbacks in residential areas this has the potential of encouraging greater infll with the district and the potential for more efficient use of residential lots. The proposed amendments comply with the goals and objectives of the Kalispell City -County Master Plan. 2. Is the requested zone designed to lessen conizestion in the streets? The proposed amendments would not typically have a significant impact on the types of uses which would be allowed in the RA-1 zoning district and would have a minimal impact on traffic generation, traffic congestion or other impacts. The changes would not have a significant effect on traffic congestion. 3. - Will the requested zone secure safety from fire, panic, and other dangers? The proposed amendments would not reduce any security from fire or other health and safety issues since all residential buildings would be required to be constructed according to building code requirements and with the approval of the fire department. The proposed change to the RA- 1 zoning would not compromise the safety and security from fire or other dangers. 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 efficient use of land, concentrating like uses within established residential districts and encouraging infill. 5. Will the requested zone provide for adequate light and air? Light and air between and surrounding buildings would not be 2 91 7. A significantly impacted in a manner that would be inconsistent with anticipated residential type of development anticipated in the RA-1 zone. The proposed changes provide for additional setbacks for higher buildings and achieve the same goals relating to providing adequate light and air between tall buildings. Will the requested zone prevent the overcrowding of land or undue concentration of people? A proposed setback seems appropriate in a residential apartment district because it provides a mechanism to address increasingly tall buildings with additional setbacks. The proposed amendment does not compromise the intended density for the area and would provide an adequate setbacks to provide for landscaping and storm water runoff retention and absorption areas around the perimeter of the site. This may increase the intensity of the land uses within the RA-1 district however, this would not necessarily lead to overcrowding. Overcrowding would occur only if the infrastructure were inadequate to accommodate the proposed uses. Will the requested zone facilitate the adequate provision of transportation water, sewerage, schools, parks, and other public requirements? Public services and facilities are generally available to the Low Density Residential Apartment districts. The concentration of higher residential uses in close proximity of each other provides for the more efficient uses of public services and facilities. The changes proposed would promote the adequate provision of services to light industrial areas. Does the requested zone give consideration to the particular suitability of the property for particular uses? Encouraging compact residential growth and infill in residential areas__ where adequate public facilities are available will provide for a more efficient use of existing residential land. This is a reasonable and suitable goal of zoning and land use planning. The requested changes give adequate consideration to the particular suitability of the Low Density Residential Apartment district for the proposed amendment. Does the requested zone give reasonable consideration to the character of the district? The character of the RA-1 zoning district would not be significantly altered because of the amended setback standards. This district anticipates relatively dense development including duplex and multi -family dwellings. Dense residential is encouraged as is evidenced by the 6,000 square foot minimum lot size requirement and the 60 foot wide lot width requirements. Amending the set' -jacks will allow greater flexibility in site design without compromising the intended character of the district. 3 10. Will the proposed zone conserve the value of buildings? The value of buildings in Low Density Residential Apartment districts would be maintained by encouraging compact and compatible residential development in areas zoned residential apartment. 11. Will the requested zone encourage the most appropriate use of the land throughout the jurisdiction? The most appropriate land uses throughout the jurisdiction is promcced by encouraging complementary and compatible uses which will help maintain property values and provide for economic stability within the community. The requested changes will encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the jurisdiction. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION The staff supports amendments to the side yard setback requirements in the RA-1 zoning district because they seem to be excessive considering that the district allows 6,000 square foot lots and 60 foot lot width. In concept, the staff fully supports the applicant's proposal. However, in discussions with the City staff, in particular the building department and zoning administrator, a more simple method has been sought. The staff would recommend that the amendment to the RA-1 be modified so that an additional five foot setback for each increment of five feet above 25 feet in height for portions of structures located in the required setback area To clarify, if a 24 foot wide attached garage structure was within ten feet of the side property boundary and the residence was over 2-E feet no additional setback would be required. Additionally, tti-e City staff concur that this amendment should also be applied to the other residential apartment zoning districts in the city, i.e. the RA-2, High Density Residential Apartment District, and the RA-3, Residential Apartment / Office District These districts have similar setback requirements and are also attached to this report. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Kalispell City -County Planning Board adopt FRDO staff report #KZTA-99-4 as findings of fact and, based on these findings, recommend to the Kalispell City Council the minimum side yard setback requirements for the RA-1, RA-2 and RA-3 zoning districts, be amended to require ` five additional feet for each increment of five feet above 25 feet in height for structures located in the setback area.' H: \... \KZTA\98 \ KZTA99-4 4 RA-1 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT Sections: 27.09.010 Intent 27.09.020 Permitted Uses 27.09.030 Uses Which May Be Permitted By Conditional Use Permit 27.09.040 Property Development Standards 27.09.010: Intent. A residential apartment district to provide areas for multi- family use and compatible non-residential uses of medium land use intensity. It should be served with all public utilities and be in close proximity to municipal services and shopping districts. 27.09.020: Permitted Uses. (I). Boarding house, incidental. (2). Church/ worship /parish/Sunday school buildings. (3). Day care (family or group day-care homes). (4). Dwelling, duplex. (5). Dwelling, single family. (6). Parks. 27.09.030: Uses Which May Be Permitted By Conditional Use Permit. (1). Artist studio with incidental sales_ (2). Bed and breakfast. (3). Boarding house. (4). Catering establishment/home occupation/maximum two temporary employees. (5). Clinics, medical when adjacent to a hospital. (6). Colleges/university-private and public. (7). Community center/gym/swim pools - operated by public and quasi -public. (8). Community residential facility for eight (8) or fewer persons. (9). Community residential facility for more than eight (8) persons. (10). Day care center. (11). Dwelling, multi -family. (12). Dwellings, cluster development. (13). Electrical distribution station. (14). Foster or group homes serving eight (8) or fewer persons. (15). Foster or group homes serving more than eight (8) persons. (16). Fraternity/sorority houses, must be within .5 miles of school. (17). Golf courses. (18). Hospital. (19). Law enforcement/fire stations. (20). Libraries, museums, and similar cultural facilities. 5 (21). Lodges/fraternal/social organizations, non-profit. (22). Manufactured home parks. (23). Manufactured home subdivisions. (24). Nursing/convalescent homes for the care of the aged. (25). Pharmacy. (26). Personal care facility. (27). Railroad rights -of -way. (28). - Recreational area, non-commercial. (29). Restaurants, as an incidental use. (30). Retirement home. (31). Schools, commercial (see definition). (32). Schools, private/public, grades 1-12. (33). Shelters. (34). Temporary building/structure. (35). Undertaking/mortuaries/funeral homes/parlors. (36). Water storage facilities. 27.09.040: Property Development Standards. (1). Minimum Lot Area 6000 sf plus 3000 sf for each additional unit beyond duplex. (2). Minimum Lot Width (FT): 60 (3). Minimum Yards (FTj: Front Yard - 20 Side Yard - 10 + additional 10 feet for each increment of 10 feet above 25 feet in height. Rear Yard -20 Side Comer - 20 (4). Maximum Building Height (FIJ: 35 (5). Permitted Lot Coverage (%): 40 (6). Off -Street Parking: Refer to Sections 27.26 and 27.27 (7). Maximum Fence Heights (FT): As per 27.22.090. RA-2 High Density Residential Apartment- Page 7 CHAPTER 27.10 RA-2 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT Sections: 27.10.010 Intent 27.10.020 Permitted Uses 27.10.030 Uses Which May Be Permitted By Conditional Use Permit 27.10.040 Property Development Standards 27.11.010:.Intent. A residential apartment district to provide areas for multi- family use and compatible non-residential uses of high land use intensity. This district is intended for central and inner-city use and not for suburban use. This district demands public and community facilities and a buffer area between it and other residential districts. 27.10.020: Permitted Uses. (1). Bed and breakfast. (2). Boarding house. (3). Church/worship/parish/Sunday school buildings. (4). Day care (family or group day-care homes). (5). Dwelling, duplex. (6). Dwelling, single family. (7). Parks. 27.10.030: Uses Which May Be Permitted By Conditional Use Permit. (1). Artist studio with incidental sales. (2). Catering establishment/home occupation/maximum two temporary employees. (3). Colleges/university-public and private. (4). Community center/gym/swim pools -operated by public/quasi- public. (5). Community residential facility for eight (8) or fewer persons. (6). Community residential facility for more than eight (8) persons. (7). Day care center. (8). Dwelling, cluster development.. (9). Dwellings, multi -family. (10). Electrica'_ distribution station. (11). Foster or group homes serving eight (8) or fewer persons. (12). Foster or group homes serving more than eight (8) persons. (13). Fraternity/sorority houses, must be within .5 miles of school. (14). Golf courses. (15). Hospitals. (16). Law enforcement/fire stations. (17). Libraries, museums, and similar cultural facilities. 7 RA-2 High Density Residential Apartment- Page 3 (18). Lodges/fraternal and social organizations, non-profit. (19). Manufactured home parks (20). Manufactured home subdivisions. (21). Nursing/convalescent homes for the care of the aged. (22). Office, operated as a home occupation with no public contact. (23). Personal care facility. (24). Pharmacy. (25). Railroad rights -of -way. (26). Recreational area, non-commercial (27). Restaurants, as an incidental use. (28). Retirement home. (29). Schools, public or private, grades 1-12. (30). Schools, commercial (see definition). (31). Shelters. (32). Temporary building/structure. (33). Undertaldng/ mortuaries/ funeral homes/parlors (34). Water storage facilities. 27.10.040: Property Development Standards. (1). Minimum Lot Area: 6000 sf plus 1500 sf for each additional unit beyond duplex. (2). Minimum Lot Width (FT): 60 (3). Minimum Yards (FT): Front Yard -'20 Side Yard - 10 + 10 additional feet for each increment of 10 feet beyond 25 feet in height Rear Yard -20 Side Corner - 20 (4). Maximum Building Height (FT): 40 (5). Permitted Lot Coverage (%): 45 (6). Off -Street Parking: Refer to Sections 27.26 and 27.27 M. Maximum Fence Heights (FIJ: As per 27.22.090. 8 RA-3 Residential Apartment/Office- Page 9 CHAPTER 27.11 RA-3 RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT/OFFICE Sections: 27.11.010 Intent 27.11.020 Permitted Uses 27.11.030 Uses Which May Be Permitted By Conditional Use Permit 27.11.040 Property Development Standards 27.11.010: Intent. A residential apartment -office district to provide areas for professional, governmental, and private offices, banks, and similar institutions, cultural and governmental facilities and limited business at locations where they are compatible with residential apartment uses and where it is not deemed desirable to permit a more intensive business activity of a retail nature. This district serves as a buffer zone between other commercial districts and adjacent residential areas. The location of this district depends on proximity to major streets, arterials, and business districts. This district shall be located within or adjacent to business corridors, shopping islands or the Central Business District. 27.11.020: Permitted Uses. (1). Artist studio with incidental sales. (2). Bed and breakfast. (3). Boarding house. (4). Chemical dependency/substance abuse clinic (outpatient only) . (5). Church/worship/parish/Sunday school buildings. (6). Clinics, medical and dental. (7). Counseling center for the physically and mentally disabled. (8). Day care (family or group day-care homes). (9). Dwelling, duplex. (10). Dwelling, single family. (11). Office, professional or governmental. (12) . Parks. (13). Pharmacy. (14). Title company. 27.11.030: Uses Which May Be Permitted By Conditional Use Permit. (1). Community center/gym/swim pools -operated by public/quasi- public. (2). Communi .y residential facility for eight (8) or fewer persons. 0 RA-: Residential ApartmenrOffice- Page 10 (3). Community residential facility for more than eight (8) persons. (4). Day care center. (5). Drive-in banking facility. (6). Dwelling, multi -family. (7). Dwellings, cluster development. (8). Electrical distribution station. (9). Foster or group homes serving eight (8) or fewer persons. (10). Foster or group homes serving more than eight (8) persons. (11). Libraries, museums, and similar cultural facilities. (12). Office, operated as a home occupation/no public contact. (13). Personal care facility. (14). Recreational area, non-commercial. (15). Schools, public or private, grades 1-12. (16). Shelters. (17). Temporary building/structure. 27.11.040: Property Development Standards. (1). Minimum Lot Area: 7000 sf plus 1500 sf for each additional unit beyond a duplex. (2). Minimum Lot Width (F'IJ: 70 (3). Minimum Yards (FT): Front Yard - 20 Side Yard - 10 except a 20 foot setback shall be required when the building height is 35 feet. Rear Yard -20 Side Corner -20 (4). Maximum Building Height (FT): 35 (5). Permitted Lot Coverage (%): 50 (6). Off -Street Parking: Refer to Sections 27.26 and 27.27 (7). Maximum Fence Heights (FT): As per 27.22.090. 10 APPttCATiON MA-ERIAL April !2, 1999 Flathead Re& a1 Development Office .: APR 12 1999 Regarditig; for amendment to RA-1 zoning text F. R. 0. 0. Dew Sir/Madam: Endaeed please find my request for conedenition of amendment to the RA-1 zoning text, specific pry of irrom in Buffalo Stage development. The haute I vm Ad hk--e to build is 69 fieei wide an a lot that is 1 Of `'eet wide, therefore h am nubjed to the 10 foot easement on each side which restricts me to the 25 foot height limitation. My ply exceed the height requirement by 2 feet in order to build over 25 feet I would have to adjust my places by 9 fext. i do runt feel it is jststified to categorize and restrict a building 27 fed in height tD the same restricaons as a building that is 35 feet high. The bright mquftcrae tt in relation to the setbacks complies the modem standard in constructing ,howAm The average new home has 9 ficaat ceding heights, which in a two. "stnx,ture tstab eighteen feet The builder also creeds to account for additional space for Boor jots oe each level and ftxwdarion This leaves the builder with only 3 1/2 feet for the roof under the current regulations; therefore the pitch on the roof loss an extremely mild grade.. Tie cmtsx regulatm is as follows: 27.0l.M ;gyp (!} Lot Area 6004 sf pdus 3000 sf for eseh {Z) WadIMM Lot ,;rK t (FT}: 60 (31 Kaiza= Ya lds TI)r Froca Yard - 20 Sde Yard - 10+0&dWal 10 feet for each of 10 fea ate 25 feet is h6shL Rea Yard - 20 Side Confer • 20 (4} Muimwa Bui1d'ing Haight (fix 35 (S} PaTnircd Lot CavmV C%i 40 (6) off -Stan Pad&4: Refa to S=fiow 27.26 and 27.27 (Jh. MIXiM as Ftt= HAGWI TT As per 27.22 M. The arnenrhwnt I would like you to consider would be to simply compromise with a foot to foot ratio. For example if soy borne exceeds thx height regulation of 25 fret by 1 foot sty tad backs would be i 3ddftwml foot toteling l I €cet instead of twcnty. I oast this infounatkn is satisfactory for your consideration If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (406) 755-45M Thank you for your time and aucrition. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Flathead Regional Development Office 723 5+h Ave. East Room 414 Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406)758-5980 Fa= (406)758-5781 PETITION FOR ZONING AMENDMENT CITY OF KALISPELL i APR i ? ;cog NAME OF APPLICANT: P. c.%ci_ rA S. ct ke V MAIL ADDRESS: P G• fox 5,? 7 CITY/STATE/ZIP: tca.!' s del/ { T 599C3 PHONE: CyC6- Z.5 S INTEREST IN PROPERTY: ZONING MAP AMENDMENT: ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT: IF THE REQUEST PERTAINS TO AN AMENDMENT TO THE TEXT OF THE ZONING REGULATIONS, PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING: A. What is the proposed zoning teat amendment? IF THE REQUEST PERTAINS TO AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP, PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING: A. Address of the property: B. Legal Description: (Lot and Block of Subdivision; Tract #) (Section, Township, Range) (Attach sheet f•.)r 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 HOW WILL THE PROPOSED CHANGE ACCOMPLISH THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF: A. Promoting the Master Plan B. Lessening congestion in the streets and providing safe access C. Promoting safety from fire, panic and other dangers D. Promoting the public interest, health, comfort, convenience, safety and general welfare E. Preventing the overcrowding of land F. Avoiding undue concentration of population G. Facilitating the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks and other public facilities 04 H. Giving reasonable consideration to the character of the district I. Giving consideration to the peculiar suitability of the property for particular uses J. Protecting and conserving the value of buildings K. Encouraging the most appropriate use of land by assuring orderly growth The signing of this application signifies approval for F.R.D.O. staff to be present on the property for routine monitoring and inspection during approval process. C)-,(-/,I, -?r- (Date) K APPLICATION PROCESS APPLICABLE TO ALL ZONING APPLICATIONS: A. Pre -Application Meeting: A discussion wits. the Planning Director or designated member of staff must precede filing of this applicz: :ion. Among topics to be discussed are: Master Plan compatibility with the application, compatibility of proposed zone change with surrounding zoning classifications, and the application procedure. B. Completed application form. C. Application fee per schedule, made payable to the Flathead Regional Development Office. Fee Schedule Zone Change: Basefee........................................................................$400.00 For first 80 acres of area of the request.................Add $5/acre For requests for 81 - 160 acres.............................Add $3/acre For requests covering 161 acres or more...............Ad"I/acre Amendment to Zoning Text ......................................................$300.00 PUD Zoning Review: Residential.................................................................... $400.00 Commercial................................................................... $500.00 MixedUse.....................................................................$650.00 D. The application must be accepted as complete by the FRDO staff thirty 130) days prior to the date of the meeting at which it will be heard in order that requirements of state statutes and the zoning regulations may be fulfilled. APPLICABLE TO APPLICATIONS FOR ZONE CHANGE: A. Application Contents: Petition for zone change signed by at least 50% of the property owners in the area for which the change in zoning classification is sought. 2. A map showing the locatioi: and boundaries of the property. 3. A list of the names and mail addresses of all property owners within 150 feet of the subject property as shown on the Assessor's roll. Example Assessor's S-T-R Lot/Tract Property Owner No. No. and Mail Address 4. A title report of the subject property. 0 OCKEY TEXT A request by Rich Ockey for a text amendment to the side yard AMENDMENT setback requirements in the RA-1 zoning district. STAFF REPORT Narda Wilson of FRDO presented staff report KZTA-99-4 in which staff recommends that the Board recommend the minimum side yard setback requirements for the RA-1, RA-2, and RA-3 zoning districts be amended to require `five additional feet for each increment of five feet above 25 feet in height for structures located in the setback area.' She stated that staff has had concern over the current regulations and that the amendment is supported by the staff in all of the apartment zoning districts. Wilson was - questioned about the procedure for an ordinance change and she stated that the city council would have a first reading in June and then a second reading as required for ordinance changes. PUBLIC EMARING The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the petition. PROPONENTS Richard Ockey, applicant, spoke in favor of the request noting that this would allow them to build their new home as their plans show. He noted that in order to build a two story home with a b/ 12 pitched roof in this zoning district an amendment to the regulations is required. Kevin Orick, spoke in favor of the five foot increment requirements rather than the foot to foot ratio as this would allow for a buffer from one house to another which is present in the other homes in the surrounding community. No one else wished to speak for or against the application and the public hearing was closed. BOARD DISCUSSION The board discussed the application and considered public comment and asked why there was need for the incremental additions to the setback based on the height of a building instead of having a straight ten foot setback. Wilson stated that having the additional five foot increments would be consistent with the area and that by having five foot increments rather than a foot to foot ratio provides for a margin of error. Mann noted that he saw no need for additional setback requirements based on building height, that a straight ten foot setback seemed reasonable. Garberg noted that a taller home would be somewhat obtrusive to the adjacent home without the additional setback. Stevens noted that - this is about single family homes not apartment buildings, and that with apartment buildings this requirement would be reasonable because their height can be more imposing. Wilson noted that this could be apartment buildings because this is the zoning area in which apartments may be built, therefore they should be considered. Kalispell City County Planning Board Minutes of meeting May 11. 1999 Page 7 of 9 MOTION Brenneman moved and Hines seconded to adopt staff report KZTA- 99-4 as findings of fact and, based on these findings, recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the minimum side yard setback requirements for the RA-1, RA-2, and RA-3 zoning districts be amended to require `five additional feet for each increment of five feet above 25 feet in height for structures located in the setback area.* On a roll call vote: Garberg, Brenneman, Hines, Rice, and Sipe voted Aye. Mann, Stevens, Heinecke, and Johnson voted No. The motion to recommend amendment of the setback requirements passed on a vote of five in favor and four opposed._ Those members in opposition to the motion noted that they were not against amending the setback requirements but would want to have a straight ten foot setback rather than having any additional setback required due to the height of the buildings. COLUM 31A FALLS A request by Columbia Falls Lounge Corporation for a conditional LOUNGE use permit to allow the conversion of an existing lounge in the CORPORATION Kalispell Center Mall into a casino in property located in the B-4 CONDITIONAL USE district. PERMIT STAFF REPORT Narda Wilson of the FRDO presented staff report KCU-99-5 in which staff recommends that the board recommend that the conditional use permit be granted subject to three conditions. She stated that there would be insignificant impacts associated with this conversion. PUBLIC EMARING The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the petition. PROPONENTS Tom Maier, manager of Cavenaugh's, spoke in favor of the petition and stated that they have a current lease request for a casino and ask that the board approve the conditional use permit. Dan Jones, attorney for Columbia Falls Lounge Corporation, spoke in favor of the petition noting that there would be very little impact to the current lounge or the mall. No one else wished to speak for or against the petition and the public hearing was closed. BOARD DISCUSSION Garberg noted that the board has looked at several casino requests in the past and that there is a build up of opposition to more casinos in the area. He noted that this facility is located in the mall and this is a family oriented area and he spoke out against the request for any additional casinos especially in this location. Heinecke asked if this was an expansion of the other casino in the mall and it was explained that this was a separate establishment. He stated that he too was against any further casino development in the city. Stevens stated that he did not believe that this is the proper forum to stop the development of casinos, that even though he is not specifically fond of them he believed that the question of casinos is best left to the legislature.