2. Building Height Standardsof Kalis
Post Office Box 1997 • Kalispell, Montana 59903-1997 • Telephone (406) 758-7700 • FAX (406) 758-7758
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: PJ Sorensen, Zoning Administrator
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
SUBJECT: Building height standards
MEETING DATE: August 27, 2001 (workshop)
BACKGROUND:
As a result of a recent application for a zoning text amendment regarding building height
in commercial areas, the City Manager asked the staff to review our current height standards.
Input was received from the Fire Department, Building Department, and the Site Review
Committee, along with substantial comments by the Tri-City Planning Office.
In recent years, the general policy of the Fire Department regarding building height relied
primarily on available fire -fighting equipment. As a result, the Fire Department did not support
heights in excess of 35-40 feet. A new approach relying on the building and fire codes has
changed that general policy. Table 5-B of the Uniform Building Code ("UBC") allows unlimited
height in many instances if certain construction and fire protection standards are met. The
Building Department also relies on Table 5-B of the UBC. While there is not necessarily a
maximum height under the UBC, additional height generates additional requirements for type of
construction, plumbing/water pressure, and several other related issues.
Most of the Site Review Committee comments centered on impacts relating to residential
areas. Conventional residential construction is one or two stories, and most residential areas
within the city have already been developed. A multi -story building amidst single-family
residences is out of place, and deprives neighboring homeowners of light, air, and views.
Neighborhood compatibility, particularly with existing neighborhoods, is a key concern.
The same concerns apply in the residential apartment zones ("RA"), although not
necessarily to the same extent. It is anticipated that apartment buildings will be larger than single
family residences or duplexes, and multi -story construction is not out -of -line with that
anticipation. However, it should be noted that the vast majority of lots within RA zones contain
single family homes. For example, Buffalo Stage Subdivision is zoned RA-1, as is the area around
the high school. Homeowners in those areas should be protected from unwarranted obstructions
of their light, air, and views as well.
With the exception of the neighborhood buffer district (B-1), the Committee generally had
no objection to increased height in the commercial and industrial zones. There were concerns
about proximity to residential areas, with suggestions that an increase in height apply only 150
feet or more from residential areas, for example. There also were concerns about increased height
near property lines. Many larger cities address that concern by fixing a certain maximum height
and then allowing added height if specified conditions are met, such as additional building
setbacks. Another approach involves a slope similar to airport height regulations in which
portions of a building may be higher based on their distance from the property line.
The Committee also discussed the interaction of building height and parking. Since most
property uses require a parking ratio based on the gross square feet of a building, adding
additional floors tends to increase the number of required parking spaces. If the land area is fixed,
the additional parking may need to be provided in creative ways such as underground parking or
first -floor parking with the structure overhead. The increased density would also increase the
amount of traffic utilizing the streets in that area, particularly during rush hours. One possible
result of increased heights, at least in the downtown area where parking is already an issue, may
be the eventual need to upgrade infrastructure, construct public parking structures, and increase
community reliance on public transportation.
Subsequent to initial discussions, a staff meeting was held to discuss specific
recommendations. In attendance were the City Manager, Fire Chief, Building Official, Zoning
Administrator, and two representatives from the Tri-City Planning Office. The meeting produced
the following recommendations:
ZONE
PRESENT HEIGHT
R-1
Suburban Residential
30 feet
35 feet
R-2
Single Family Residential
30 feet
35 feet
R-3
Urban Single Family Residential
30 feet
35 feet
R-4
Two -Family Residential
30 feet
35 feet
R-5
Residential/Professional Office
35 feet
35 feet
RA-1
Low -Density Residential Apartment
35 feet
35 feet
RA-2
High -Density Residential Apartment
40 feet
40 feet
RA-3
Residential Apartment/Office
35 feet
40 feet
H-1
Health Care
35 feet
40 It (60 It w/ CUP)
-(Hospitals)
60 feet
B-1
Neighborhood Buffer District
30 feet
35 feet
B-2
General Business
40 feet
40 ft (60 ft w/CUP)
B-3
Community Business
40 feet
40 ft (60 ft w/CUP)
B-4
Central Business
72 feet
40 ft (unlimited
w/CUP)
B-5
Industrial/Commercial
50 feet
40 ft (60 ft w/ CUP)
I-1
Light Industrial
40 feet
40 ft (60 ft w/ CUP)
I-2
Heavy Industrial
60 feet
40 It (60 It w/ CUP)
P-1
Public
50 feet
40 ft (60 ft w/ CUP)
The residential zones were slightly changed to allow more flexibility for steeper roof
pitches. The change brings our residential limits into accord with other jurisdictions in the valley.
In the commercial and industrial zones, the changes would allow additional height in most
circumstances. The provision for a CUP for structures in excess of 40 feet will allow us to adopt
performance standards to assure minimal impact on residential areas, neighboring properties, and
the public welfare in general. The specific standards will be developed through the Site Review
Committee, and will likely include buffer areas near residential zones, some form of additional
setbacks, and architectural standards.
RECOMMENDATION: The Council provide direction to staff to develop performance
standards for heights in excess of 40 feet, and to initiate an amendment to the zoning ordinance
incorporating the proposed maximum heights and performance standards.
FISCAL EFFECTS: No direct effects.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the Council.
Respectfully submitted,
Pi orensen Chris Kukulski
Zoning Administrator City Manager
Report compiled August 23, 2001