06. Ordinance 1296 - Zoning Text Amendment - Bob CookORDINANCE NO. 1296
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 27.22.030(3)(a) OF THE KALISPELL
ZONING ORDINANCE, (ORDINANCE NO. 1175), BY ALLOWING RESIDENTIAL
GARAGES TO BE LOCATED IN FRONT YARDS ON LOTS THAT DO NOT ABUT AN
ALLEY, AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Bob Cook has submitted a written request to amend
Section 27.22.030(3)(a) of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, by
requesting private garages be allowed to be placed in front yards
on lots that do not abut an alley, 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
27.22.030(3)(a), Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, and
WHEREAS, FRDO evaluated the requested text amendment and
recommended, per Report #KZTA-98-3, that residential garages may be
located in front yards on lots that do not abut an alley, 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 residential garages may be
located in front yards on lots that do not abut -an alley, 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-98-3 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
Ordinance No.
follows:
Section 27.22.030(3)(a):
Kalispell Zoning Ordinance,
1175, is hereby amended as
No accessory structures, except fences, walls, hedges,
and residential garages on lots that do not abut an
alley, shall be located in any front yard.
F:\wp\ord\1296cooktexamend.wpd 1
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
1998.
Wm E. Boharski - Mayor
ATTEST:
Theresa White
Clerk of Council
F:\wp\ord\1296cooktexamend.wpd 2
Flathead Regional Development Office
723 5th Avenue East - Room 414
Kalispell, Montana 59901
Phone: (406) 758-5980
Fax: (406) 758-5781
November 25, 1998
Glen Neier, City Manager
City of Kalispell
P.O. Box 1997
Kalispell, MT 59903
Re: Bob Cook - Zoning Text Amendment to Section 27.22.020(3)(a)
Dear Glen:
The Kalispell City -County Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, November
10, 1998 and held a public hearing on a request by for a text amendment to Section
27.22.020(3)(a) of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance to allow private garages to be placed in
.front yards on lots that do not abut an alley. The specific amendment would be as follows
(the addition is underlined):
27.22.020(3)(a) No accessory structures except fences, walls, er hedges, and private
garages on lots that do not abut an alley shall be constructed in any front yard.
Steve Kountz with the Flathead Regional Development Office presented a staff report and
stated it was an amendment the staff could support. The application was evaluated
under the statutory criteria. Staff recommended approval.
During the public hearing, the applicant spoke in favor of the proposed change. No one
spoke in opposition.
The Board discussed the proposal. A motion was made and seconded to forward a
recommendation to City Council to approve the proposed amendment to the Kalispell
Zoning Ordinance subject to two minor editorial changes intended for clarification:
replace the term "private garage", with "residential garage", and replace the word
"constructed" with "located" in order to read as follows:
27.22.020(3)(a) No accessory structures, except fences, walls, er hedges, and residential
garages on lots that do not abut an alley, shall be ^� ed located in any front yard.
The motion passed on a vote of six in favor and none opposed.
Please schedule this matter for the regular City Council meeting of December 21, 1998.
Please contact this Board or the Flathead Regional Development Office if you have any
questions regarding this proposal.
Sincerely,
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
Milt Carlson
Vice President
MC/SK/sm
Providing Community Planning Assistance To:
Flathead County • City of Columbia Falls • City of Kalispell • City of Whitefish
Glen Neier
Re: Bob Cook Zoning Text Amendment
November 25, 1998
Page 2 of 2
Attachments: FRDO Report #KZTA-98-3/Application Materials
Draft minutes of the meeting of November 10, 1998
c w/o Att: Bob Cook, 4047 Highway 93 South, Kalispell MT 59901
c w/Att: Theresa White, Kalispell City Clerk
H:... \TRANSMIT\KALISPEL\ 1998\KZTA98-3
Christmas. Hines asked how long they would use the building. Greer
said it would probably be 3 years.
Motion Stevens moved to adopt Staff report #KCU-98-9 as findings of fact and
recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the conditional use
permit be approved subject to the amended conditions of # 1, 2, 3,
and 5 and the deletion of Condition #4; Bahr seconded the motion.
On a roll call vote Bahr, Stevens and Johnson voted aye, Carlson and
Hines, nay, and Heinecke abstained. The motion passed on a 3-2
vote.
COOK TEXT Carlson submitted a request by Bob Cook for an amendment to the
AMENDMENT Kalispell Zoning Ordinance to allow an exception for private garages
on lots that do not abut an alley to be placed in the front yard.
Staff Report Kountz gave a summary of Staff report #KZTA-98-3, and recommends
that the board approve the request subject to two minor editorial
changes intended for clarification: replace the term "private garage"
with "residential garage", and replace the "constructed" with "located".
It was asked if set back corners applied and Kountz stated that it did
not.
Public Hearing:
Proponents Doc Dahlquist, representing the applicant, spoke in favor of the
proposed text amendment.
Opposition No one was opposed.
Board Discussion Heinecke asked if his property didn't meet the setbacks then he
couldn't put a detached garage on his property. Kountz said he could
add an attached garage but not a detached garage.
Motion Hines moved to adopt staff report #KZTA-98-3 as findings of fact and
recommend approval of the request subject to two minor editorial
changes intended for clarification: replace the term "private garage"
with "residential garage", and replace the word "constructed" with
"located", in order to read as follows: 27.22.020(3)(a) No accessory
structures, except fences, walls, and residential garages on lots that
do not abut an alley, shall be located in any front yard; Heinecke
seconded the motion. On a roll call vote: Carlson, Heinecke, Bahr,
Stevens, Johnson, and Hines voted aye. The motion passed on a 6-0
vote.
NEW BUSINESS The board discussed the master plan update. Kountz said he would
mail the draft to approximately 30 people and have copies on hand at
various other placed. It was decided to have meetings in December
and January to take public comments. Stevens said he didn't want to
have public comments at the regular meeting. Hines said new
members will be seated in January and it would be better to take
public comments before that because the new members would not be
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of November 10, 998
Page 9 of 10
BOBCOOK
FLATHEAD REGIONAL DEVELOPMENTOFFICE
ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT REPORT #KZTA-98-3
NOVEMBER
es•
A report to the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and the Kalispell City Council regarding
a text amendment to the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. A public hearing has been scheduled
before the planning board for November, 10, 1998 beginning at 6:00 PM in the City Hall
Council Chambers. The planning board will forward a recommendation to the city council for
final action.
A. Petitioner: Bob Cook
4047 Highway 93 South
Kalispell, MT 59901
B. Summary of proposed text amendment: The application is to amend Section
27.22.020(3)(a) of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance to allow private garages to be
placed in front yards on lots that do not abut an alley. The specific amendment would
be as follows (the addition is underlined):
27.22.020(3)(a) No accessory structures except fences, walls, sr hedges, and
private garages on lots that do not abut an alley shall be constructed in any
front yard.
The applicant has constructed a duplex on Sunnyside Dr. and would like to construct
garages or carports in front of them.
EVALUATION BASED ON STATUTORY CRITERIA
The statutory basis for reviewing a change in zoning is set forth by 76-2-303 and 76-2-305,
M.C.A. The application is evaluated in accordance with the zoning criteria described by 76-
3-304, M.C.A.
Does the requested zone comply with the Master Plan?
The master plan does not address the placement of accessory structures in front
yards.
2. Is the requested zone designed to lessen congestion in the streets?
No impact is anticipated on congestion in the streets.
3. Will the requested zone secure safety from fire, panic, and other dangers?
No significant impact is anticipated on public safety or emergency access. The
amendment may result in placement of residential buildings farther from the street,
making fire suppression somewhat more difficult, but the Uniform Fire Code would
prevent placement of any part of the building farther than 150 feet from a fire lane.
4. Will the requested change promote the health and general welfare?
The primary intention of the requirement is to enhance aesthetics by placing primary
buildings in front, since they typically have more architectural merit and are better
maintained, while hiding sheds, large garage doors, open storage associated with
garages, and other non-descript structures behind the primary buildings. In addition,
garages may not be painted as often or maintained as well if they are detached from
the main building. Another intention of the requirement proposed to be amended is
to make streets more pedestrian friendly and active by providing for front doors,
windows, porches, foyers, and balconies that face and are close to the sidewalk,
rather than garages, driveways, and curb cuts. These traditional design features
orient streets more toward the functions of pedestrian circulation and social activity,
rather than just to carry vehicular traffic and utilities.
On the other hand, the norm in contemporary housing construction has been to place
attached garages in front yards, partly to avoid longer driveways, since alleys are rare
in new subdivisions, and partly to buffer houses from the traffic and noise of the
street. Negative aesthetic and pedestrian impacts of the proposed amendment on
new streets are anticipated to be relatively minor overall, because the current practice
of placing attached garages in front has become so prevalent, and the impact of
placing attached or detached garages in front is nearly the same. In addition, the
proposed amendment would have no effect on most of Kalispell's older streets and
neighborhoods that have alleys. The advantage of the amendment would be that it
increases design flexibility to tailor construction to a particular site.
5. Will the requested zone provide for adequate light and air?
No impact is anticipated on the provision of light and air between buildings.
6. Will the requested zone prevent the overcrowding of land or undue concentration of
people?
No significant impact is anticipated.
7. Will the requested zone facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water,
sewerage, schools, parks, and other public requirements?
No significant impact is anticipated.
2
8. Does the requested zone give consideration to the particular suitability of the property
for particular uses?
The amendment would increase flexibility to tailor construction to a particular site.
9. Does the requested zone give reasonable consideration to the character of the
district?
As noted above under effects on public welfare, the zoning requirement proposed to
be amended is intended primarily to enhance aesthetics by placing primary buildings
in front, since they typically have more architectural merit and are better maintained,
while hiding sheds, large garage doors, open storage associated with garages, and
other non-descript structures behind the primary buildings. On the other hand, the
negative aesthetic impacts of the proposed amendment on new streets are
anticipated to be relatively minor overall, because the current practice of placing
attached garages in front has become so prevalent, and the impact of placing
attached or detached garages in front is nearly the same. Also, the proposed
amendment would have no effect on most of Kalispell's older streets and
neighborhoods that have alleys. No public comments have been received on the
application as of this writing.
10. Will the proposed zone conserve the value of buildings?
Some accessory buildings placed in front yards may be poorly maintained and
become eyesores for neighbors. On the other hand, the effect on property values is
not anticipated to be significant overall, because the current practice of placing
attached garages in front has become so prevalent on new streets, and the
amendment would not apply to most of Kalispell's older streets which have alleys.
11. Will the requested zone encourage the most appropriate use of the land throughout
the iurisdiction?
No significant impact is anticipated.
Staff recommends that the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission
adopt FRDO staff report #KZTA-98-3 as findings of fact and recommend approval of the
request subject to two minor editorial changes intended for clarification: replace the term
"private garage" with "residential garage," and replace the word "constructed" with "located,"
in order to read as follows:
27.22.020(3)(a) No accessory structures, except fences, walls, er hedges, and
residential garages on lots that do not abut an alley, shall be strur--ted located in
any front yard.
HA ... \KZC\98\KZC98-4
Flathead Regional Development Office APPLICATIJ:-A
Ave. East rrs:r 414
KaliSpell, 1. 59901
• A'
40 ,... • a. t , 8
F. R. D. O.
1. NAME OF APPLICANT: cs� 7 �J5 Z- Ccq
2. MAIL ADDRESS: w
3. CITY/STATE/ZIP: 1-C f . 1 51-7 l HONE:-�tS-:ZI
4. INTEREST IN PROPERTY:
5. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT: ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT:
A-
What is the proposed zoning text amendment? -L '7 .2 Z r 0'2—
I I _ . 1. it VON .t ♦ t , :•
-f,t• : 105:xop xntI r
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
I d I8G5 85G 9N 'ON M 90I d H AHQ 9Hd GV2HJVJI WV Z� : 6 I1H:i
HOW WHm THE PROPOSED C9MGZ ACCONIPLISH THE WPM AND PURPOSE
A. Promoting the Master Plan
B. Lessening congestion in the streets and providing safe access
N
iA
E.
19
Promoting safety from fire, panic and other dangers
Promoting the public interest, health, comfort, convenience, safety and general
welfare
Preventing the overcrowding of land
Avoiding undue concentration of population
G. Facilitating the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewage, schools,
parks and other public facilities
2
Z d I9G5 95L 9D 'OK Xdd 20I990 A30 Jed QV3HZV'1d n Z�:6 nu 96-9 -.110
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.
(Applicant)
3
J -a
(Date)
9 'd IUS 95G 9D 'OH XVd 90ldd0 Aga DU MHIVId WV 9�:6 IlH,L U-A