Loading...
05. Ordinance 1511 - Text Amendment - 1st ReadingTri-City Planning Office 17 Second Street East — Suite 211 Kalispell, Montana 59901 Phone: (406) 751-1850 Fax: (406) 751-1858 tricity@centurytel.net www.tricitvplanning-mt.com REPORT TO: Kalispell Mayor and City Council FROM: Narda A. Wilson, Senior Planner Frank Garner, Acting City Manager SUBJECT Kalispell Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment - To Allow Decks to Encroach into the Setback MEETING DATE: September 7, 2004 BACKGROUND: This is a request by William Rice/Denman Construction to consider adding a section to allow for decks, porches, and landings less than 30 inches in height to extend into setbacks up to 50 percent in all residential districts. The Kalispell City Planning Board held a public hearing on August 10, 2004 to consider the proposal. At the public hearing the applicant spoke in favor of the proposed amendment and one individual spoke in opposition. The board discussed the proposed change and a motion was made to recommend to the Kalispell City Council that decks, porches, and landings less than 30 inches in height be allowed to extend into setbacks up to 50 percent in all residential districts. The motion failed on a unanimous vote and therefore the Board is recommending denial of the proposed amendment. The text of the proposed amendment is attached as Exhibit A. RECOMMENDATION: A motion to adopt the first reading of the ordinance for amending the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance would NOT be in order based upon the planning board's recommendation.. FISCAL EFFECTS: ALTERNATIVES: Respectfully submitted, ,�� -4. V"L- -, Narda A. Wilson, Senior Planner Minor positive impacts once fully developed. As suggested by the city council. 1 d' ' i Frank Garner Acting City Manager Report compiled: August 27, 2004 Providing Community Planning Assistance To: • City of Kalispell • City of Whitefish e City of Columbia Falls Kalispell Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment -- Decks in the Setback August 27, 2004 Page 2 c: Theresa White, Kalispell City Clerk Attachments: Transmittal letter Staff report KZTA-04-6 and application materials Draft minutes from 8/ 10/04 planning board meeting TRAM SMIT/ KALISPELL/ 2004/ KZTA-0406MEMO. DOC ORDINANCE NO. 1511 .AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE KALISPELL ZONING ORDINANCE, (ORDINANCE NO. 1460), BY ALLOWING OPEN DECKS LESS THAN 30 INCHES IN HEIGHT TO ENCROACH UP TO 50 PERCENT INTO THE SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACK AREAS IN ALL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, William C. Rice has submitted a written request to amend Section 27.22.020 of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, by allowing open decks less than 30 inches in height to encroach up to 50 percent into the side and rear yard setback areas in all residential districts, and WHEREAS, the request was forwarded to the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission by the Tri-City Planning Office after having been evaluated under 27.14.030, Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, and WHEREAS, the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission recommended that open decks less than 30 inches in height be allowed to encroach up to 50 percent into the side and rear yard setback areas in all residential districts be denied, and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the TCPO Report and the transmittal from the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission and hereby adopts the findings made in Report #KZTA-04-5 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. 1460, is hereby amended as follows on Exhibit "A", attached hereto and thereby made a part hereof. SECTION II. All parts and portions of Ordinance No. 1460 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 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2004. Pamela B. Kennedy Mayor ATTEST: Theresa White City Clerk EXHIBIT A KALISPELL ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT 27.22.020: Accessory Uses, Subsection 3, Accessory Use Restrictions (h) Open decks, porches and landings less than 30 inches in height can extend into the required side and rear and setbacks up to 50 percent. Tri-City Planning Office 17 Second Street East - Suite 211 Kalispell, Montana 59901 Phone: (406) 751-1850 Fax: (406) 751-1858 tricity@centurvtel. net August 27, 2004 Frank Garner, Acting City Manager City of Kalispell P.O. Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903 Re: Kalispell Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment To Allow Decks to Encroach into the Setback Dear Frank: The Kalispell City Planning Board met on August 10, 2004 and held a public hearing to consider a request by the William Rice/Denman Construction to consider adding a section to allow for decks, porches, and landings less than 30 inches in height to extend into setbacks up to 50 percent in all residential districts. Narda Wilson of the Tri-City Planning Office, presented staff report #KZTA--04--5 evaluating the proposal and recommended approval of the proposed. amendments. At the public hearing the applicant spoke in favor of the proposed amendment and one individual spoke in opposition. The board discussed the proposed change and a motion was made to recommend to the Kalispell City Council that decks, porches, and landings less than 30 inches in height be allowed to extend into setbacks up to 50 percent in all residential districts. The motion failed on a unanimous vote and therefore the Board is recommending denial of the proposed amendment. The text of the proposed amendment is attached as Exhibit A. Please schedule this matter for the September 7, 2004 regular Kalispell City Council meeting. You may contact this board or Narda Wilson at the Tri-City Planning Office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, Kalispell City Planning Board rgc Taylor President GT/NW/rna Providing Community Planning :assistance To: • City of Kalispell - City of Columbia Fails - City of Whitefish Kalispell Zoning Ordinance 'Text Amendment — Decks in the Setback August 27, 2004 Page 2 Attachments: Exhibit A Staff report KZTA-04-5 and application materials Minutes 8/ 10/04 planning board meeting c w/ Att: Theresa White, Kalispell City Clerk c w/o Att: William C. Rice, Denman Construction, 6733 Highway 93 South, Whitefish, MT 59937 Kalispell Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment — Decks in the Setback August 27, 2004 Page 3 E�BIT A KALISPELL ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW DECKS TO ENCROACH INTO THE SETBACK The Kalispell City Planning Board recommended to the Kalispell City Council that they deny the following amendment to the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance: Section 27.22.020, Accessory Uses, Subsection 3, Accessory Use Restrictions, New Subsection h Open decks porches and landings less than 30 inches in height can extend into the required side and rear vard setbacks up to 50 percent. August 25, 2004 William Rice 155 East Nicklaus Kalispell, MT 59901 406-257-7874 Kalispell City Council Kalispell, MT 59901 To Kalispell City Council Members; Before you is a text amendment requesting that decks of a certain size be allowed in the rear and side setbacks. At the planning board meeting a couple of issues came up. But because there was very little discussion, I would like to comment. Text amendments usually come about because something triggers inconsistency or lack of text dealing with situations. In this case I built decks in the front and rear setbacks. On the plans to the building dept they were shown as patios. A couple of years ago I built a number of townhouses in Village Greens with decks in the rear setback so I never gage it a second thought when I changed the patios to decks. But since then I have found out that the set back I was building the decks in wasn't the city setback but rather the Village Greens setback. Hence my confusion about being allowed to build decks in setbacks. It is important that the merits of the text amendment are looked at for what they are and not factor in what triggered the text amendment. The only real issue that was discussed at the planning board meeting is the height of the deck. Decks or stoops are built at the same level as the finished floor of the .house. So the concern of looking down in the neighbors yard off the deck is no different then looking out your window. As the text is right now I could build a 36" high retaining wall with a poured concrete patio the size of my back yard and be in compliance with zoning and building codes. The new text limits the height of decks to 30" which is a height below requirements for a building permit and also limits the size to half the distance of the setback. To get from the finished floor height to a patio, code requires a 36" X 36" stoop and steps to get down to the patio. This stoop, although considered a structure, is waived into the setback. So what is the difference between sitting on a 36" high patio, hanging out on the back stoop, looking out your windows and sitting on a 30" high deck? My intent was to have a text amendment that allowed decks in the front set back too. This amendment isn't asking for this but I would like you to consider adding it. Right now VTt.1 11011 a �n�x�c ra txr rc nr �tfunFo in f}x ca 11,ollt cP4}ion7r I/finnMA I(A �UcO "AOXI 'L Lia 1% n"II II .16 YY AAF 4i.Llil AA 44AiV �ru uvvA�.A Vi JLV Vt1J 1,fA 4Ai4 11 Vi1L JtiLV 4AVi1. EY LAil JV 4tiU tIV VJ G41JV. i [ll+ tl.Uil Vlllil Y� is that with front porches or stoops it will encourage people to sit in the front yard and try to recapture community spirit. I don't think that because a sitting deck is allowed in the front setback that all of a sudden people will be partying, barbequing and creating chaos in front yards throughout the city. I feel those activities will still be reserved for back yards. This is important.. by allowing decks or stoops in front setbacks homeowners can build the maximum size house for the lot and still have a sitting area in the front yard. Please consider aching front set backs to the text amendment and look at the positives for allowing another way for people to enjoy their back and front yards. Sincerely, Bill Rice WILLIAM C. RICE I DENMAN CONSTRUCTION ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS TO OPEN DECKS TRI-CITY PLANNING OFFICE STAFF REPORT KZTA-04-5 AUGUST 2, 2004 A report to the Kalispell City Planning Board and the Kalispell City Council regarding a request for amendments to the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. A public hearing has been scheduled before the Kalispell City Planning Board for August 10, 2004 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.. A. Petitioner: William C. Rice Denman Construction 6733 Hwy 93 South Whitefish, MT 59937 (406) 863-9925 B. Area Effected by the Proposed Changes: Any of the various zoning districts where decks might be constructed could be affected by the proposed changes. These would generally include the single family residential and two family residential zoning districts inside the city limits of Kalispell. C. Proposed Amendments: Proposed Amendments: This is a proposal to add a section to the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance allowing uncovered decks less than 30 inches in height to encroach into the side yard and rear yard setback area up to 50 percent. The proposed amendments could potentially affect properties located in most of the residential and residential apartment zones and to a lesser extent the mixed use and conmiercial zoning districts in the Kalispell city limits. A new section would be added under Supplemental Regulations. D. Stag' Discussion: The intent of these amendments is to provide greater flesrihilitu in hiiilrling rle i n by gfowinp, an enrroarhmenr of love level. onen decks into the side and rear yard setback areas. At grade improvements are currently allowed such as patio, but are not always practical.. These would give the building, developer or property owner other options in creating an outdoor seating area. Decks in the front yard areas were specifically excluded because of the nature of the use of decks with barbeques and patio furniture. 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. The Kalispell Growth Policy 2020 does not specifically address deck issues. However, increasing the use of low level decks could allow some areas to be more fully developed and at a greater density. The plan encourages compact efficient use of land.. This amendment is in substantial compliance with the goals and policies of the plan to provide for compact and efficient development in some of the residential areas of the planning jurisdiction. •s-s r r•- sr r r- The proposed amendments would not generally impact the types of uses allowed in a district, but would allow for an increase in the intensity of uses. The changes would not have a substantial impact to increase or lessen. congestion. Traffic associated with the various uses would not generally be affected.. This amendment may not compromise the security and safety of the community since any building would have to be constructed in accordance with the applicable building and fire codes. Decks less than 30 inches in height are not considered a structure and do not require a building permit. The proposed change in the zoning would have no direct relationship to the promotion of the general health and welfare of the public. Health and safety codes would be primary means of securing the health and welfare of the community. ,� • -s .- -s s• • s s' s .s-s •• .ss Adequate light and air may be affected by this change because the potential increase in the size of buildings which could block light and air to the surrounding properties. Properties adjacent to larger buildings could potentially be most affected. The relaxing of the treatment of decks could potentially create a greater intrusion on neighboring properties but would not block light and air, thereby negatively impacting adjoining properties. r -s • s -s - A. relaxing of the standards for open decks would provide additional flexibility and potential additional use of properties. However, this may not translate into an overcrowding of land, which would only occur if there were other issues such as inadequate setbacks from the building or not enough on -site parking. 2 Full public services and facilities would generally be anticipated to be available to all areas affected by these changes. The proposed amendments would not generally impact the facilitation of public services. The relaxing of the standards for open decks could potentially affect all areas of the City where the residential properties affected by these amendments are located. The uses would not be changed. g. reasonable 5i Pr fhQ chaza-ctcr of the district-P It is predictable that many of these areas are already fully developed and most would not be affected by the proposed changes. Most of the fully developed properties on the east and west sides of Kalispell would construct additions or make alterations to an existing structure. The actual impacts would likely be minimal and would not change the character of the areas which are well established and would be somewhat limited in most situations. Ii t r' • • • -i r •r 'r' •- ! i •• The proposed text amendment will conserve the value of buildings by allowing for flexibility in the architecture and construction of the new buildings and would not change the character of established neighborhoods. These relaxing of the standards for open decks are not necessarily anticipated to be more intensive in nature that would result in a negative impact to buildings. Allowing an increase in the use of open decks allows for a more compact and efficient use of land and encourages greater density in the community. Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board adopt staff report #KZTA- 04-5 as findings of fact and, based on these findings, recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the proposed amendments be adopted as outlined in Exhibit A. 3 EXHIBIT A RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO THE KALISPELL ZONING ORDINANCE OPEN DECKS Section 27.22.020, Accessory Uses, Subsection 3, Accessory Use Restrictions, Subsection (h) Oven decks, porches and landings less than 30 inches in height can extend into the required side and rear yard setbacks up to 50 percent. 07/06/2004 12:44 4063623151 DENMAN CONSTRUCTION PAGE 02 'fir#-c" Maui" Odk* 17 Ges d St Zest, Suits 211 KaH,SpWL WT 59901 Ph"m d06 71-1850 Peua 406751-IMS w .. MAILING ADDIZE5 CITY/S ATE/ZIR WBAT 18 TEN PROPS 7t'1►iflll4'1=1 - i mb IrP SO---EtaA-� r7_ 9-1 v 'm Svc* 'Ka) At. jt�v oil -.I 1 6911- ill I lqifilk'� W. A. Promoting the Civowth Pommy �'`� 07/06/2004 12:44 4068623151 DENMAN CONSTRUCTION PAGE 03 B. Lessening cx►ngeatian us the streets and providing safe acceaas iw Ar C. Promoting safety front fire, panic and other dwWn D. Promoting safety front fire, panic and other dangaraigr E. Preventing the over. wwding of land FAvoiding undue concert m ian of population � . y f : G. Facau.a.lataug the aasquaW pravaraaon of tranaportauon, water, sewage, acnovts, parka, and other public faciHties !V (& . ki H. (riving reasonable cnzuaaideration to the character of the district 9k�' T0.01 UF+ l'w ", S Ilan IAA , t t.W0&,%-W G.*i ' lNS I Diving consideration to the peculiar suitability of the property for particular uses tar. '�►.�t- �a ���b� J. Protecting and conserving the value of buildings �� tVVVW1XM 07/06/2004 12:44 4068623151 DENMAN CONSTRUCTION FACE 04 K. Encouraging the most appr€spnate use of land by asau -mg orderly Smwthh ale at yir de ! ,tr t t yk ,r * �Y �Ir yF +Ir yt +Y 1r * # st * fr � r� ik f * * # # � � � aF * dr # dir �r � ie,► f (Applicant SipLatum) Date) 07/06/2004 12:44 4068623151 DENMAN CONSTRUCTION PAGE 05 1ve'� � "5�1� t��. ��S'Jti+�,c�e. '� �� �.i7•.�.," � �.• `#�3'4� T� � '�a..►r�-t�.t� 2 'sr .04 SE VAS.. zor 07/21/2004 17:06 4068623151 DENM#AN CONSTRUCTION PAGE 02 71SAR m. 10 , Lsr,�C=4 � � I rc�ca' -` -—1 DO YOU REALLY WANT YOUR NEIGHBORS ' CLOSER. TO YOU AND ENCROACMNG ON SETBACKS? This proposal is going to open the door for homeowners and contractors to build on setbacks. What are they going to ask for next? What concerns me with the encroachment of the decks is that if you allow them to encroach 50% on the setback, in the future when they build two and three story homes/apartments the high rise decks can also encroach 50% into the setback. Thus, directly looking straight dowry into someone's side yard, back yard or possible front yard. For example, the new triplexes two doors down from me on 5"' Ave. E. have decks that are in violation of the zoning setbacks. The person who built these triplexes is also the person who is proposing this new amendment (Bill Rice). Is his proposal really looking out for the betterment of the area or is he trying to create a new amendment since his decks are already built and in violation of the setback? As far as I am concerned he should be cited and so should the zoning board for not citing him knowing full well that he was in violation. And I know this because I went to the zoning administration office on Thursday, August 5, 2004 and spoke with P. J. Sorenson regarding this matter_ I had the drawing that you have in front of you for the proposed amendment and even though this is the general proposal we have a stickywicket. In this drawing it shows a generalization of a deck being on the back of a building. When Mr. Rice built the triplexes he built two buildings that face each other with the center court in the middle. The problem is that the back part of the building is facing the front of 5`r' Ave. E. with three individual attached decks. Also, on the rear side of the building facing 3`d Ave. E. there are three individual attached decks, all of which are in violation and encroaching four to five into the setbacks. At the city council meeting last year the board discussion was about the site plan and whether the triplexes were back to back or front to front. Regarding the triplexes, at that time Narda Wilson answered that the rear elevation would be seen from the street. So, that leads nee to believe that the rear of the building facing 5`' Ave. E. is really the rear of the building not the front. If this is the case, how do the decks play into that factor? You need to have a 20' set back in the front of the property which is really the back (facing 5` Ave. E.) and also a 20' setback in the rear facing 3`1 Ave. E. When I took this drawing into Mr. Sorensen, I asked him specifically if according to this drawing were the decks on the front and back in violation of the setbacks and his answer was '`yes". This might be a good time to bring up fire safety within setbacks and also to bring up forfeiting open space for the childrens sake. We all know that apartments are temporary housing and people don't stay very long, so wouldn't it be better to have yard space for the children to play, in instead of them having to play in the street? It's a no brainer this proposal should be dropped as we speak. The same person who is proposing this amendment pulled the same kind of shenanigans a year ago by proposing to the planning board and city council a proposal, that the way it was written was totally inconsistent with what the actual proposal was. That is this: He took a one acre parcel and led the planning board to believe it was to build the two triplexes on 5t' Ave. E. which would have been o.k. No problem. plenty of room for parking and decks. Then at the same meeting he asked that the zoning on %2 of the parcel be changed from RA -I to $-2. Therefore, he built the triplexes on a 12 acre parcel. I feel the planning board needs to be given more information and facts on all proposals. This deck thing is totally misleading and the proposal to build the triplexes was totally misleading. If Mr. Rice had built the triplexes on the one full acre parcel he wouldn't have to be asking to encroach into setbacks and he would not have to be asking the city to park cars on the street because he did not have enough on -site parking. Also, I'm concerned about Mr. Rice and his proposals and the level to which he will go to get things past at other peoples expenses. The reason I say this is at the same time he proposed the triplexes, he also proposed the mini storage units which border residential property directly behind my property. The only thing that the neighborhood asked was that he save the 75 year old tree which was a buffer zone between 3" Ave. E. and 5' Ave. E. The planning board as well as the city council agreed the tree should try to be saved. Mr. Rice had no regard for this request. If we are not more careful about our planning this could be your backyard. This is what could happen to you.