6. Central School MuseumJanuary 21, 1997
AGENDA ITEM 7 - ORDINANCE 1254-PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TO
ALLOW A SECOND DWELLING IN R-4-2ND READING -TABLED TO 1/21/97
BACKGROUND/CONSIDERATION: This item was tabled at our previous
meeting due to the questions raised within Mr. Wood's letter. In
terms of the performance standard as permitted usage, the
dimensional requirements and criteria are basically identical. The
real question or difference of allowing this as a conditional usage
is.
A. Conditional Use Permit requires notification of the
area property owners for their input;
B. Conditional Use Permit retains final decision by
the Council; and
C. Conditional Use Permit requires a $300 application
fee.
Permitted use covers the same issues as the Conditional Use,
except:
A. Staff makes the final decision to allow/disallow
the usage;
B. does not require notification of anyone within the
neighborhood for their input - it is permitted;
C. Permit fee would be a regular building permit
schedule - no additional application fees required.
RECOMMENDATION: To maintain oversight and some control of this
process and usage, I still concur with the FRDO recommendation to
January 21, 1997
require this as a Conditional Use. This allows the Council to be
the decision maker with the neighborhood being informed prior to a
decision to allow some "intrusion" of a different usage within this
area.
ACTION REQUIRED: If you desire to continue with the Conditional Use
Permit, the second reading should be completed. If you desire to
change to allow this as a permitted usage, I would suggest that we
begin over to allow us to rewrite the ordinance to reflect your
desired process.
ORDINANCE NO. 12.54
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 27.07.020, 27.22.020(2), AND
27.26.50(42) OF THE KALISPELL ZONING ORDINANCE, (ORDINANCE NO.
1175), BY ADDING "ACCESSORY SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS" AS A
CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USE IN A RESIDENTIAL, R-4, ZONING
DISTRICT; AND TO REFERENCE THIS ADDITION OF ACCESSORY SINGLE-FAMILY
DWELLINGS IN THE SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS SECTION ON ACCESSORY
USES; AND ESTABLISHING A PARKING REQUIREMENT OF TWO SPACES FOR THE
ACCESSORY SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING, AND TO PROVIDE AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, W.H. Rinkenbach, has submitted a written request to
amend Section 27.07.20 of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, by
allowing two detached single-family houses on one lot in a R-4
Residential zoning district that otherwise allows either a duplex
or a single detached house; a second proposal to amend Section
27.22.020(2) to add an accessory single-family dwelling in the
Supplementary Regulations Section on accessory uses, noting that
the accessory dwelling must be subordinate in area and height to
the principal dwelling and meet the setback and other property
development standards of primary structures in R-4 Residential
zoning districts; and a third proposal to amend section
27.26.050(42) establishing a parking requirement of two spaces for
the accessory single-family dwelling, 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
27.30.20, Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, and
WHEREAS, FRDO evaluated the requested text amendment and
recommended amending Sections 27.07.020, 27.08.020, 27.10.020, and
27.11.020 allowing "Dwelling, Accessory Single -Family" as a
permitted use in R-4, R-5, RA-1, RA-2, and RA-3 zoning districts;
and adding Section 27.22.02(2), which specifies the permitted
accessory uses in the R-1 through R-5 districts; and amending
Section 27.26.050(42) to require .the minimum number of off-street
parking spaces as 2 per dwelling unit.
WHEREAS, the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning
Commission recommended that the text of the Kalispell Zoning
Ordinance be amended to allow "Dwelling, Accessory Single -Family"
as a conditionally permitted use in a Residential, R-4, zoning
j:\wp\ordl254.wpd 1
district; and adding Section 27.22.02(2) specifying conditions for
accessory uses; and amending Section 27.26.050(42) to require the
minimum number of off-street parking spaces as 2 per dwelling unit.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF KALISPELL AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. That Section 27.07.030, City of Kalispell
Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No. 1175, is
hereby amended by adding thereto the
following:
Uses Which May Be Permitted by Conditional Use Permit.
"Dwelling, Accessory Single -Family"
SECTION II. That Section 27.22.020 (2)(a), City of
Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No.
1175, is hereby amended by adding thereto the
following:
12) Accessory single family dwelling in R-4 district
only, subject to following requirements:
i) No more than two dwelling units per lot is
permitted. The lot must conform to the minimum lot
area requirements of the underlying zoning
district.
ii) Maximum floor area of the accessory single family
dwelling is 1000 square feet. Maximum height is 25
feet.
iii) An accessory single family dwelling shall conform
to the setback requirements of principal
structures. The minimum setback between the
principal and accessory dwelling is 10 feet. The
location of an existing structure(s) shall not be
considered a special condition or circumstance that
justifies the granting of a variance from these set
back requirements.
j:\wp\ord1254.wpd 2
iv) If a lot with an accessory single family dwelling
is subdivided, the existence of the second dwelling
shall not be considered a special condition or
circumstance that justifies the granting of a
variance from the property development standards of
Section 27.07.040.
v) Approval of sewer and water facilities by the
Public Works Director shall be obtained prior to
building permit approval of an accessory single
family dwelling.
SECTION III. That Section 27.22.020 (2)(b), City of
Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No.
1175, is hereby amended so as to read a
follows:
(b) In the RA-1, RA-2 and RA-3 Zones. In addition to
the accessory uses included in subsection (2) (a) ,
except (2)(a)(12) noncommercial domestic storage
buildings associated with multi -family dwellings
and off-street loading shall be permitted.
SECTION IV. That Section 27.26.050 City of Kalispell
Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No. 1175, is
hereby amended by adding thereto the
following:
(42) Residential, Single Family and accessory single
f_ami.l�y� 2 per dwelling unit.
SECTION V. That this Ordinance shall take effect 30 days
from and after final passage by the City
Council.
j:\wp\ord1254.wpd 3
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR OF THE CITY
OF KALISPELL THIS DAY OF , 1996.
Douglas D. Rauthe, Mayor
ATTEST:
Debbie Giffford, CMC
Clerk of Council
j:\wp\ord1254.wpd 4
ASSOCIATED PLANNING CONSULTAN
BRIAN J. WOOD
2220 DILLON ROAD
COLUMBIA FALLS, MT 59912
406-862-2580 FAX 862-2523
January 6, 1997
Mayor Douglas Rauthe
Kalispell City Council
P.O. Drawer 1997
Kalispell, MT 59904
ICE: Agenda Item #6
Second Reading, Ordinance 1254
Mayor R.authe & Members of the Council:
Tonight you will be considering the second reading of Ordinance 1254, which, if
adopted, will allow as a conditional use in the R-4 zoning district, a second
residential dwelling on a single lot.
When application for this text amendment was made, it was requested that the
second dwelling be allowed as a Derni tted use. The FRDO staff subsequently
recommended to the Punning Board that they approve, with conditions, the
requested text amendment, and that second dwellings be allowed as permitted uses.
Ater considerable debate, the Planning Board voted to forward to you a
recommendation to allow the second dwellings as conditional uses. Z am writing to
request that you grant the amendment as originally requested and allow second
dwellings in the R-4 as permitted uses, subject to the conditions contained in
Ordinance 1254.
It is the applicant's position that allowing a second dwelling only upon the issuance
of a Conditional Use Permit will unnecessahly add expense, in terms of both time
and money, to anyone wishing to construct a second dwelling. The conditions
contained in Ordinance 1254 adequately address the review criteria for conditional
use permits found in Chapter 27.34 of the city's zoning ordinance. The professional
staffs of the FR.DO and city are certainly capable of deternnii itng compliance with
the conditions set forth in Ordinance 12541 without subjecting an applicant to a 90-
120 day public hearing process. It is also important to keep in mind that the
requested text amendment will not result in increased density, lot coverage or traffic
generation beyond what is already anticipated within the R,-4 district - it simply
allows two detached structures on a lot where at this time two attached structures
are allowed.
Thank you for your consideration. I would have preferred to speak directly to the
council on this matter, but I am unable to attend this evening's meeting.
On behalf of W.H. Rinkenbach, applicant,
t. __ Brian 7. Wood
nFC Flathead Regional Development Office
723 5th Avenue East - Room 414 �
Kalispell, Montana 59901 C4
November 19 1996
Clarence Krepps, City Manager
City of Kalispell
P.O. Drawer 1997
Kalispell, IYfT 59903
RE: Kalispell Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment - W.H. Rinkenbach Request
to permit "Accessory Single Family Dwellings" in R--4 districts
Dear Clarence:
The Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission met in regular session on Tuesday,
November 14, 1996, and held a public hearing on the following application:
A request by W.H. Rinkenbach for text amendments to the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. The
primary amendment (Section 27.07.020) would add "Accessory Single -Family Dwelling" as a
permitted use in R4 Residential zoning districts, which essentially would allow two detached single-
` family houses on one lot in a zoning district that otherwise allows either a duplex or a single detached
house. A second proposed amendment (Section 27.22.020(2)) is to reference this addition of
accessory single-family dwellings in the Supplementary Regulations section on accessory uses, noting
that the accessory dwelling must be subordinate in area and height to the principal dwelling and meet
the setback and other property development standards of primary structures in the R4 district. A
third proposed amendment (Section 27.26.050(42)) would establish a parking requirement of two
spaces for the accessory single-family dwelling.
At the public hearing, the applicant's representative submitted a neighborhood petition in favor of the request
and objected to the performance standards recommended by staff regarding variances and owner -occupation
of the primary dwelling. No one else spoke at the public hearing.
Board members made comments both in favor and in opposition to the proposed amendments. Although
the majority of the board supported the proposed zoning, objections included the potential for harm to
neighborhood integrity, overcrowding, effects on property values, and the moving of substandard houses
onto lots. Support was expressed for the recommended performance standards on variances, noting that
these standards would not undermine the variance mechanism and would help preclude the creation of
substandard lots and setbacks. The board voted 7:2 to limit the proposed zoning text amendment to the R-4
classification and to require a conditional use permit for an accessory single family dwelling.
The board voted 7:2 to adopt the staff report as findings of fact and recommend approval of amending the
zoning ordinance as indicated in Attachment A.
Providing Community Planning Assistance To:
Flathead County • City of Columbia Falls • City of Kalispell • City of Whitefish •
Clarence Krepps, City :Manager
Re: Rinkenbach Zoning Text Amendment
November 19, 1996
Page 2
Please contact the Commission or Steve Kountz of FRDO if you have any questions.
Respectfully Submitted,
SPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING COMMISSION
4fi L�
Therese Fox Hash
President
TFH/SK/eo
Attachments: KZTA-96-3 packet
Attachment A
Petition
Draft :4 mutes of 11 / 14/96 Planning Board meeting
c: Diana Harrison, City of Kalispell
P. O. Box 1997
Kalispell, MT 59901
...TRANSMIT\ 1996\KZTA96-3.TRM
ATTACHMENT A
KZTA-96-3, W.H. RINKENBACH
TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE KALISPELL ZONING ORDINANCE
AS RECOMMENDED BY THE
KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 14,1996
1. Amend Section 27.07.020 by adding "Dwelling, Accessory Single Family' as a conditional use. This
amendment applies to the R-4 zoning districts.
Z Add the following to Section 27.22020(2)(a), which specifies the permitted accessory uses in the R-1
through R-5 districts:
12) Accessory single family dwellings in the R-4 district one subject to the following requirements•
No more .than two dwelling units per lot is permitted. The lot must conform to the
minimum lot area requirement of the underhing zoning district.
(u�. Maximum floor area of the accessory single family dwelling is 1,000 square feet.
Maximum height is 25 feet.
(iiij. An accessory single family dwelling shall conform to the setback requirements of
principal structures The minimum setback between the principal and accessory dwellings is 10 feet
variance from the property development standards of Section 27.07.040.
(v1�. -Approval of sewer and water facilities by the Public Forks Director shall be obtained
prior to building permit approval of an accessory single family dwelling
3. Amend Section 27.22.020(2) by adding the underlined text indicated below
(b) In the RA-1, RA-2, and RA-3 zones. In addition to the accessory uses included in subsection
(2)(a) excMt (2)la)(12), noncommercial domestic storage buildings associated with multi -family dwellings and
off-street loading shall be permitted.
4. Amend Section 27.26.050, which specifies the minimum number of off-street parking spaces required
for a given use, as follows:
(42) Residential, Single Family and Accessory Single Family 2 per dwelling unit
H:\...\T ANSMIT\1996\KZTA96-3.TRM
W.H. RINKENBACH
TEXT AIMENDMENT TO THE KALISPELL ZONING ORDINANCE
FRDO STAFF REPORT f/KZTA-96-3
NOVEMBER 6, 1996
A report to the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and the Kalispell City Council regarding
a request to amend the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. A public hearing has been scheduled before
the Kalispell City -County Planning Board on November 14, 1996, beginning at 7:00 p.m. A
recommendation from the planning board will be forwarded to the city council for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. Petitioner: W.H. Rinkenbach
P.O. Box 914
Kalispell, MT 59901
B. Proposed Amendments:
The primary amendment (Section 27.07.020) proposed would be to add "Accessory
Single Family Dwelling" as a permitted use in R-4 Residential zoning districts.
Essentially, this change would allow two detached single-family houses on one lot in a
zoning district that otherwise allows either a duplex or a single detached house. A
second proposed amendment (Section 27.22.020(2)) is to reference this addition of
accessory single-family dwellings in the Supplementary Regulations section on accessory
uses, noting that the accessory dwelling must be subordinate in area and height to the
principal dwelling and meet the setback and other property development standards of
primary structures in the R-4 district. A third proposed amendment (Section
27.26.050(42)) would establish a parking requirement of two spaces for the accessory
single-family dwelling.
B. Affected Zoning Districts:
As proposed, only the R-4 Residential district would be affected. The R-4 districts cover
much of the westside and eastside residential districts, and some smaller areas along or
near North Meridian Road. The vast majority of the land in R-4 districts has been
developed with single-family housing on urban density lots. Consideration may be given
to extending the amendment to the R-5, RA-1, RA-2, and RA-3 districts, since they also
allow a duplex as a permitted use.
C. Staff Discussion:
As discussed below, benefits of the proposed zoning would include expanding
opportunities. for affordable housing, implementing the master plan, lessening congestion
in the streets community -wide, reduction of neighborhood impacts of growth relative to
other permitted housing types, and making efficient use of infrastructure and services.
Potential problem areas of the proposed zoning include impacts of additional density and
building mass in established neighborhoods, indirect creation of non -conforming lots and
structures, maintenance differences between rental and owner -occupied housing, and
compatibility of new buildings in National Register historic districts. Performance
standards are proposed and discussed to mitigate these potential problem areas.
Effects on density. The proposed zoning would not increase the allowable density in the
R-4 district, but it is anticipated to result in modest incremental increases in the density
of these areas. Under current zoning, options for adding a second unit to a typical R-4
lot with an existing house include converting the house to a duplex, adding on to the
house to create a duplex, or removal of the house to construct a new duplex. The
proposed zoning would offer a fourth option to create two dwellings.
Affordable housing. The need for affordable housing is anticipated to be an increasingly
important issue in the Flathead Valley, as has occurred in other regions experiencing
resort -oriented growth. As a type of affordable housing, accessory dwellings in single-
family neighborhoods offer some significant public advantages. First, this housing type
could provide a substantial amount of affordable housing in close proximity to jobs,
shopping, and schools. Second, this housing type disperses affordable dwellings within
the community, avoiding the formation of ghettos and resulting uneven community
development. Third, this housing type typically draws less neighborhood opposition than
other affordable housing alternatives (e.g., multi -family development, manufactured home
parks), since it creates less impact on immediate neighbors and the visual character of
neighborhoods.
Potential creation of non -conforming lots and structures. The proposed zoning could
result in the indirect creation of non -conforming lots and structures. First, the addition
of second dwellings on lots could result in future requests to subdivide these lots, which
in many cases would require zoning variances for substandard lot sizes and lot widths.
To avoid undermining these lot size and width requirements, staff recommends that this
scenerio should be anticipated and addressed by adding the following performance
standard: if a lot with an accessory single family dwelling is subdivided, the existence
of the second dwelling shall not be considered a special condition or circumstance that
justifies the granting of a variance from the property development standards of Section
27.07.040.
2
Similarly, the proposed zoning could result in many variance requests to convert existing
garages or other structures with substandard setbacks into accessory dwellings.
Likewise, staff recommends that this scenerio should be anticipated and addressed by
adding the following performance standard: the location of an existing structure(s) shall
not be considered a special condition or circumstance that justifies the granting of a
variance from applicable setback requirements.
Application to other zoning districts. The accessory single-family dwelling could also
be considered as a permitted use in the R-5, RA-1, RA-2, and RA-3 districts, each of
which currently allows duplex dwellings as a permitted use. Moreover, these other
districts allow greater densities or a broader range of uses than the R-4 district, so the
addition of accessory single-family dwelling would generally be no less compatible in
these districts. The Kalispell Site Review Committee reviewed the proposed zoning on
October 31st and supported its application to the R-4, R-5, RA-1, RA-2, and RA-3
districts.
Appropriateness as a permitted or conditional use. The proposed zoning could be added
as a "permitted," "conditional," or "administrative conditional" use, depending on the
level of public review desired. A residential duplex is already allowed as a permitted
use. Staff discusses and recommends performance standards below, which anticipate and
address potential problems. The Kalispell Site Review Committee supported adoption
of the proposed zoning as a permitted use.
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. This analysis will cover all of the proposed amendments.
1. Does the requested zone comply with the Master Plan?
Plan map. The master plan map designates most of the areas zoned R-4 as "Urban
Residential" and some areas near North Meridian Road as "High Density Residential."
The proposed zoning would not increase the allowable residential density in R-4 districts
and would substantially comply with the plan map designations. Similarly, if the
proposed zoning was extended to the R-5, RA-1, RA-2, or RA-3 districts, the allowable
density in these districts would not increase as a result of the zoning amendments.
Relevant plan objectives.
4. A housing supply within the planning jurisdiction that meets the needs of
present and future residents in terns of supply, choice, and location.
3
4.b Review the zoning text and map periodically to correct any discriminating
or exclusionary requirements.
6.g Maintain the character of single-family neighborhoods.
8.s Designate areas of future development which are already serviced or are in
areas which can be economically serviced by water and sewer systems, police and fire
protection, etc.
9. A historical and cultural heritage documented and preserved for the
enrichment and enjoyment of present and future generations.
The proposed zoning would substantially comply with the master plan, by expanding
housing opportunities, making efficient use of infrastructure and services, and providing
a design alternative for growth in established single-family neighborhoods that would be
less obtrusive than new multi -family development.
2. Is the requested zone designed to lessen congestion in the streets?
The proposed zoning would lessen congestion in the streets. First, it would facilitate
community -wide transportation efficiency and reduce increases in commuter traffic, by
locating housing growth in central Kalispell in close proximity to jobs, shopping, and
schools. Second, it would reinforce the pedestrian network and opportunities for
expansion of multi -modal transportation systems in Central Kalispell. Third, R-4
neighborhoods (as well as R-5, RA-1, RA-2, and RA-3) are already zoned to permit
duplex density, so the proposed zoning would not result in more traffic congestion in
those areas than current zoning would allow.
3. Does the requested zone give reasonable consideration to the character of the district?
Incremental rg owth The majority of the land in R-4 districts has been developed with
single-family housing on urban density lots, as well as much of the land zoned R-5, RA-
1, RA-2, and RA-3. Most of these established neighborhoods have significant integrity,
in regard to building compatibility, tenancy, and stability. Duplex and multi -family
zoning anticipates substantial redevelopment and change in these areas. Assuming that
such growth will occur, the proposed zoning could improve neighborhood stability by
offering a transitionary housing type of less impact on immediate neighbors than new
duplex or multi -family development. The addition of accessory dwellings within
established neighborhoods typically represents small-scale, incremental growth.
DensiV and building mass. The proposed zoning would not increase allowable density
or allowable building mass in neighborhoods where it is applied. Where zoning allows
substantially more density and building mass than the existing housing in R-4 and other
duplex districts, however, the proposed zoning could result in noticeable neighborhood
changes and obtrusive buildings. For example, the prevailing building height in
Kalispell's duplex and multi -family zoning districts is one and two stories, up to 25 feet,
while the zoning allows 30-40 foot height, varying by district. Building setback, height,
4
and lot coverage requirements provide for privacy, open space, and neighborhood
aesthetics. If the proposed zoning is adopted, staff recommends consideration of the
following performance standards, in order to reduce the potential of adding incompatible
new buildings in existing neighborhoods and resulting neighborhood opposition:
No more than two dwelling units per lot is permitted. The lot must conform to
the minimum lot area requirement of the underlying zoning district.
Maximum floor area of the accessory single family dwelling is 1,000 square feet.
Maximum height is 25 feet.
An accessory single family dwelling shall conform to the setback requirements of
the principal structure. The minimum setback between the principal and
accessory dwellings is 10 feet.
Tenancv and maintenance. The proposed zoning may result in a higher proportion of
rental occupancy in neighborhoods with primarily owner -occupied housing, which could
have modest negative impacts on neighborhood stability and property maintenance. On
the other hand, the duplex development already permitted likewise anticipates renter
occupancy. To reduce the potential of maintenance problems and resulting neighborhood
opposition, staff recommends consideration of the following performance standard if the
proposed zoning is adopted:
An accessory single family dwelling may not be rented or leased as a separate
residence unless the property owner maintains permanent residence in the primary
dwelling.
Impacts on historic districts. Some of the buildings in the R-4, RA-1, RA-2, and RA-3
districts are included within the National Register historic districts of Central Kalispell.
The introduction of incompatible new buildings could undermine the integrity of these
historic districts. The Kalispell Zoning Ordinance does not include historic district
design guidelines or require major site plan review for duplexes, which otherwise would
require consideration of the character of the area and historical characteristics.
Potentially, however, allowing for accessory single-family dwellings could have less
impact on historic districts than the alternatives of demolishing historic houses to build
duplexes or converting historic houses into duplexes by additions or remodeling.
4. Will the requested zone secure safety from fire, panic and other dangers?
No significant impact is anticipated. The proposed zoning would not increase the
allowable residential density in R-4 districts or other districts permitting duplexes. Based
on existing zoning, it is presumed that these areas have adequate access to emergency
services and are not high -hazard areas. Fire Chief Ted Waggoner recommended verbally
that the accessory structures comply with setbacks required for principal structures, in
order to provide fire separation from other buildings and separation from overhead
utilities in alleys.
5. Will the requested change promote public health and general welfare?
No significant impact on public health is anticipated. The proposed zoning would
promote general welfare by expanding opportunities for affordable housing, implementing
the master plan, reduction of the neighborhood impacts of growth relative to other
permitted housing types, and making efficient use of infrastructure and services (see
discussions of each above).
5. Will the requested zone provide for adequate light and air?
No significant impact is anticipated. The proposed zoning would not reduce development
standards addressing the provision for light and air between buildings. These standards
include building setbacks and limits on density, height, and lot coverage.
7. WilI the requested zoning prevent the overcrowdingof f land?
No significant impact is anticipated. The proposed zoning would not increase the
allowable residential density, lot coverage, or building mass in R-4 districts or other
districts permitting duplexes.
8. Will the requested zone avoid undue concentration of people?
No significant impact is anticipated. The proposed zoning would not increase the
allowable residential density in R-4 districts or other districts permitting duplexes.
9. Will the requested zone facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water,
sewerage, schools, parks, and other public requirements?
The proposed zoning would provide for efficient use of infrastructure and services by
facilitating growth in Central Kalispell, which is already serviced and capable of
accommodating duplex densities. The R-4 neighborhoods (as well as R-5, RA-1, RA-2,
and RA-3) are already zoned to permit duplex density, so the proposed zoning would not
result in more demand for services and infrastructure than current zoning would allow.
City Engineer John Wilson recommended a performance standard requiring approval of
sewer and water facilities prior to building permit approval, specifically to address
provision of separate utility lines to the separate dwellings.
10. Does the requested zone give consideration to the particular suitability of the property
for particular uses?
No significant impact is anticipated. The proposed zoning would not increase the
allowable residential density, lot coverage, or building mass in R-4 districts or other
districts permitting duplexes.
2
11. Will the proposed zone conserve the value of buildings?
See discussion above on consideration of neighborhood character. No public objections
have been received on the proposed zoning as of this writing.
12. Will the requested zone encourage the most appropriate use of the land throughout the
.jurisdiction?
In general, the proposed zoning would comply with the master plan, as discussed above,
and thereby is seen as encouraging the most appropriate use of land throughout the
jurisdiction. In addition, the proposed zoning would reduce neighborhood impacts of
growth relative to other permitted housing types and make efficient use of infrastructure
and services (see discussions of each above).
RECOTNEWENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the staff report KZTA-96-3 as findings of fact and approval of
the following amendments to the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance:
1. Amend Sections 27.07.020, 27.08.020, 27.09.020, 27.10.020, and 27.11.020 by adding
"Dwelling, Accessory Single Family" as a permitted use. This amendment applies to the R-4,
R-5, RA-1, RA-2, and RA-3 zoning districts.
f 2. Add the following to Section 27.22.020(2), which specifies the permitted accessory uses
in the R-1 through R-5 districts:
12) Accessory single family dwellings in the R-4 and R-5 districts, subject to the
following requirements:
M. No more than two dwelling units per lot is permitted. The lot must conform
to the minimum lot area requirement of the underlying zoning district.
(ii). Maximum floor area of the accessory single family dwelling is 1,000 square
feet. Maximum height is 25 feet.
iii). An accessory single family dwelling shall conform to the setback
requirements of principal structures. The minimum setback between the principal and
accessory dwellings is 10 feet. The location of an existing structure(s) shall not be
considered a special condition or circumstance that justifies the _Yrantingof a variance
from these setback requirements.
(iv). An accessory single family dwelling may not be rented or leased as a
separate residence unless the property owner maintains permanent residence in the
primary dwellins.
7
(v_). If a lot with an accessory single family dwelling is subdivided the existence
of the second dwelling shall not be considered a special condition or circumstance that
justifies the rg anting of a variance from the 1)ropeM development standards of Section
27.07.040.
(vi). Approval of sewer and water facilities by the Public Works Director shall
be obtained prior to building_ permit approval of an accessory single family dwelling.
3. Amend Section 27.26.050, which specifies the minimum number of off-street parking
spaces required for a given use, as follows:
(42) Residential, Single Family and Accesso Single Family: 2 per dwelling
unit.
H:\...\KZTA\96\KZTA96-3.RPT
R.
KAI.ISPELL CITY-COL`NTY PL-�NNING BOARD
AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINt7ES OF MEETING
NOVELfBER 14, 1996
CALL TO ORDER The regularly scheduled meeting of the Kalispell City -County Planning
AND ROLL CALL Board and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by
President Therese Hash. Board members present were Fred Hodgeboom,
Pam Kennedy, Jean Johnson, Bob Sanders, Joe Brenneman, Walter Bahr,
Mike Conner, Milt Carlson and Therese Hash. The Flathead Regional
Development Office was represented by Narda Wilson, Planner II, and
Steve Kountz, Senior Planner. The City of Kalispell was represented by
Diana Harrison, Zoning Administrator. There were approximately 15
people in the audience.
APPROVAL OF The minutes of the meeting of October 8, 1996, were approved as written
MINUTES on a motion by Bahr, second by Johnson. All members present voted
aye.
S A.NLUUT_AL President Hash announced that a letter was received from Sister June
HOUSE / Kenny on behalf of the Samaritan House, requesting a continuance on the
CONDITIONAL request for a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a
USE PERMIT / homeless shelter. The public hearing will be rescheduled to the December
- Request for meeting.
F
i, Continuance
SOMERS LAND The first public hearing was introduced on a request by Dennis Carver on
COMPI.NY ZON 7E behalf of Somers Land Company for annexation into the City of Kalispell
CHANGE / FROM and initial zoning from County R-4, Two -Family Residential, to City R-4,
COLtiTY R-4 TO Residential. The property proposed for annexation is west of Airport
CITY R4 Road in the southwest area of Kalispell and will be known as Ashley Park,
Phase II. The subdivision which is proposed for annexation contains
approximately 8.24 acres. The property can be described as a portion of
Assessor's Tract 4+ located in the north half of the southeast quarter of
Section 19, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead
County.
Staff Report Wilson presented an overview of report #KA-96-5. The applicant's
request for an initial zone of R-4 upon annexation into the City of
Kalispell is a condition of preliminary plat approval. The request meets all
the necessary criteria, and staff recommended that a favorable
recommendation be sent to City Council granting the rezone from County
R-4 to City R-4 upon annexation.
Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the requested zone
change. No one spoke either in favor or in opposition to the requested
zone change upon annexation into the City of Kalispell.
Motion Bahr moved to adopt report #KA-96-3 as findings of fact, and
recommend to City Council that the initial zoning from County R-4 to
City R4 be granted upon annexation. Johnson seconded. On a roll call
vote, all members present voted aye. The motion carried unanimously.
SOUTH The next public hearing was introduced on appropriate zoning
WOODLAND/ designations for South Woodland / Greenacres area proposed for
GREENACRES annexation. This area contains approximately 308 acres and is generally
ZONE REQUEST located in southeast Kalispell. Zoning is a mix of R-2 and R-3, single-
LPON family residential; B-2, general commercial; I-1, light industrial; and P-1,
ANNEXATION public for County park.
Staff Report Wilson gave a presentation of the South Woodland / Greenacres
Annexation and Zoning report #KA-96-6. Part of the process for
annexation is to consider the appropriate zone classification when the
property goes from the County into the City. Based on evaluation of the
statutory criteria established for review of a change in zone, the
recommended zoning classifications were intended to comply with the
Master Plan and newly adopted Neighborhood Plan. Staff recommended a
favorable recommendation to the City Council to adopt the zoning as
presented in Exhibit B of report #KA-96-6.
A letter from Jim and Sandi Vashro, and Ben and Anne Taylor was
entered into the record which expresses concern about annexation.
Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the zoning
designations as proposed for the South Woodland / Greenacres area.
In Favor Dennis Dortch, President of Greenacres West Homeowners Association,
which is proposed for R-2 and R-3 zoning, and those classifications meet
the character and lifestyles we want out there. We do have a homeowners
park in the area that is under consideration to be taken over as a City park.
That probably should be zoned P-1.
No one else spoke in favor of the proposed zoning. The public hearing
was opened to those opposed.
Opposition Sally Delby, 1740 Woodland Avenue, whose property was proposed to be
zoned R-2, noted that there are several properties on that corner and
south from her property that meet the requirements for an R-1
designation. The lots are quite large, with livestock, and for that reason
she requested that City R-1 be considered as that allows agricultural /
horticultural uses, and other listed uses in the R-1 zone. Ile City R-1
would be more applicable to what exists there.
Bob vleerkatz, 1604 South Woodland, stated that he is tning to protect
himself and is perhaps at the wrong hearing, but he is opposed to being
annexed into the City. He is concerned with City taxes on undeveloped
sections of land. It has taken me 33 years to acquire the piece of property,
and now I may be forced to sell it because I can't afford to pay the taxes
on it:. I would hate to be penalized with all the work I've done to afford
to buy this piece of property and now it will be taxed over my means of
paying for it, as I am retired.
No one else spoke in opposition to the proposed zoning. The public
hearing was closed and it was opened to Board discussion.
Board Discussion The Board discussed the request for City R-1. The R-1 designation in
both the County and the City allows livestock. It would be appropriate to
zone that R-1 and the existing uses and lot size would be in conformance
with the zone. It would help maintain the rural character of the
neighborhood as identified in the neighborhood plan. The avowed and
conditional uses are similar in both the City and County R-1 zones.
The Board supported the request and determined the boundaries for the
R-1 designation, to be the large lots from Ergasia Comer on Woodland
Avenue, south on Willow Glen to Lot 8 of Greenacres Original. The large
lots south of that in Greenacres Block One would not be appropriate for
an R-1 zone, as there are two mobile home parks in that vicinity.
The request to zone the homeowners park as P-1 was reasonable, and the
Board agreed to that amendment to the recommendation to City Council.
Motion Kennedy moved to adopt staff report #KA-96-6 as findings of fact and
forward a favorable recommendation to City Council to adopt the zoning
as proposed in Exhibit B upon annexation into the City of Kalispell with
the amendments to change the zoning from R-2 to R-1 from Ergasia
Comer to Section 9 and to zone the homeowners park P-1. Carlson
seconded. On a roll call vote Johnson, Brenneman, Bahr, Carlson,
Conner, Kennedy, Sanders, Hodgeboom and Hash voted aye. The
motion carried 9-0 in favor of the recommended zoning classifications for
the South Woodland / Greenacres area. upon annexation into the City of
Kalispell. The City Council meeting on this issue is scheduled for
December 2°d.
RINKENBACH The next item on the agenda was a request by W. H. Rinkenbach for text
TEXT amendments to the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. The primary amendment
AMENDMENT / (Section 27.07.020) would be to add "Accessory Single -Family Dwelling"
TWO DETACHED as a permitted use in R-4 Residential zoning districts, which essentially
SINGLE FA2MILY would allow two detached single-family houses on one lot subject to
HOUSES ON ONE specific performance standards.
LOT IN R-4 ZONE
3
Staff Report Kountz gave a detailed presentation of report #KZTA-96-3. Based on
evaluation of the necessary criteria, staff recommended approval of the
amendments to the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance as set forth in report
# KZTA-96-3.
Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the text amendment
In Favor Brian Food, 2220 Dillon Road, Columbia Falls, representing the applicant
W. H. Rinkenbach, submitted a petition signed by 38 people to be entered
into the record, in support of the text amendment as proposed in the R-4
district. The applicant has no problem with expanding into the other
zones. Discussions have been ongoing since May with the City, FRDO
and myself. We appreciate the favorable staff recommendation, however,
there are three items in the recommendation that causes some concern.
On page 7, under the Recommendation, subparagraph 2iii, the last line
states "The location at: an existing structures shall not be considered a
special condition or circumstance that 'ustifies the gr Qt a variance
from these setback requirements." On page 8, 2V, "If a lot with a'sin e
&mfl.y dw_.elhng is subdivided. the existence at: the second dwelling shall
not be considered a special condition Qr circumstance that 'ut sti&e theei
rg_mtinng Qf a variance from the proper yt development standards Qf
- Section 27.07.040." It is our position that State law very clearly defines the
criteria that the Board of Adjustment uses in considering variance
requests. The City Zoning Ordinance also clearly defines the powers and
duties of the Board of Adjustment. We feel that each application for a
variance should be based on its own merits and this type of a blanket
statement is not necessarily appropriate when considering this text
amendment. On page 7, 2 iv, ".in access�r� sin e fames dwelling may
not be rented or leased as a separate residence unless the prope owner
maintains permanent residence in the prim dwelling." Aside from
being a difficult enforcement task, as was acknowledged, it is also
somewhat questionable as to the legality of that type of a requirement,: I
spoke with the City Attorney about it and he is not comfortable with the
condition. What I would like to ask staff to do is get a formal opinion
from Glen Neer. It would also be a radical change from anything the City
has done in the past At this time, someone can build a duplex in any of
the R-4 districts and rent to whomever they choose. We would
respectfully request that the Board delete the last line of subparagraph (iii)
on page 7, all of (iv) on page 7, and all of subparagraph (v) on page 8, and
forward a favorable recommendation to City Council.
No one else spoke either in favor or in opposition to the proposed text
amendment, the public hearing was closed and the meeting was opened to
Board discussion.
4
Board Discussion The Board discussed flow to determine the primary dwelling and the
enforceability of the ordinance was questioned. Staff replied that, as in
many instances, enforcement would be through complaints if there is a
problem.
Kennedy had grave concerns about the ramifications of this text
amendment, which would effect the majority of Kalispell. The city has
been aggressively addressing affordable housing in the community,
however, she did not believe that moving in substandard housing is
looking out for affordable housing in our community. I do not agree that
this is not the same as a duplex. I have a real problem with all the
substandard homes coming into the City from out in the County. I
cannot support this proposal. With this being a permitted use, with the
owner not on the property, we are setting it up where the west side of
Kalispell will be further damaged than it is now.
Carlson was opposed to extending this to all the residential districts.
Secondly, I think it should be a conditional use so that it can be renewed.
He made an observation, that sometimes when a person retires, they want
a smaller place for themselves, and rent out the larger one to help them
stay in the area and maintain some revenue.
Hash was also opposed to the text amendment. She questioned why it
was requested for just R-4, as that was obviously what zone the property
owner has. She had a problem with substandard size lots, as it often
becomes an issue when it goes to subsequent owners. There are two
residences and the lot cannot be split. I would suggest that it be a
conditional use. I think it is important that in the regulations, it indicates
that such an existence of an ancillary structure is not a special condition. I
agree that the Board of Adjustment has their own criteria, but I would be
more comfortable 'with that language maintained. Areav ide, I think it
would help with the issue of affordable housing, but overall, I don't think
it would be good for the city as a whole, and would not be in favor.
Hodgeboom could support this as a conditional use in all of the proposed
zones. It wouldn't be a widespread occurrence. There are good reasons
for having an ancillary dwelling.
Kennedy countered that there are good reasons, but the majority will
become rentals, and we have to be concerned about overcrowding on city
lots. The names on the petition are from all around the high school, and
you can't find a place to park in that area.
Brian Wood addressed the questions of the Board regarding their request.
The reason it was requested as a permitted use is that they felt the
performance standards addressed the concerns. They have no problem
with it being a conditional use. They do not have a problem with applying
5
for a variance. We did not want the existence of a building to determine
whether it was granted or not. That shouldn't be the consideration for
granting a variance. State law specifically spells out the criteria that the
Board of Adiustment uses. We did not want to add another criteria to
their consideration. We don't know whether we can.
The Board was concerned about what a broad area of Kalispell that this
text amendment applies to.
Kennedy asserted that what has happened on the west side of Kalispell is
that there has been development of larger lots where older housing stock
is being moved in from out in the county. You will see many older homes
on new foundations. What you will end up with is two substandard
homes on a lot, rather than taking down a substandard home and building
a duplex.
Brian Food said that he does not know what is being referred to as
substandard. In the City of Kalispell there are two house movers who are
licensed. The building code requires certain standards be met on any
house moved into the city. Craig Kmman is diligent in ensuring that that
Occurs.
Kountz responded to some of the concerns regarding substandard
housing being moved in. I echo Brian in that it does need to comply with
public safety standards for the Uniform Building Code and Fire Code. If
aesthetic standards are the concern, I would urge you to consider design
standards in the city, or set standards that they fit into neighborhoods.
That is a citywide issue that does not relate to accessory structures.
Regarding Brian's concern on the variance, the proposed performance
standards would not add an additional criteria that would be looked at for
a variance. One of the criteria that is looked at is that if there are special
circumstances or a hardship that would justify the variance. These
performance standards state that the existence of this accessory unit is not
a circumstance that could be used to justify a variance. It is very
reasonable to require a conditional use permit, so that these can be
addressed on a case by case basis. Whitefish adopted something a bit
more controversial in that they allowed both accessory houses and a guest
house in the single family district. They have more of an affordable
housing problem there. I have looked at 6-7 conditional use permits for
accessory apartments or guest houses, and none of them were
controversial in the neighborhood. No one opposed them and it took a
lot of time. Therefore, I did not propose it as a conditional use, but it
would make it more reasonable as a test case to look at each on a case by
case basis.
Motion Hodgeboom moved to adopt report #KZTA-46-3 as findings of fact and
recommend approval of the text amendment as outlined in the report;
0
except that it be changed from a permieted to a conditional use in # 1 and
#2. Brenneman seconded.
Amended Motion Carlson moved to amend the motion to limit the text amendment to R-4
only. Bahr seconded the amendment to the motion. On a roll call vote
for the amendment to the motion, Bahr, Johnson, Conner, Sanders,
Kennedy, Carlson, and Brenneman voted in favor of limiting it to R-4.
Hodgeboom and Hash voted nay. The motion carried 7-2.
Roll Call vote on A roll call vote was taken on Hodgeboom's motion which includes all the
Motion as Amended proposals in the staff report, With the amendment to apply the tent
amendment to the R4 zone only, and that it be a conditional use rather
than permitted. Carlson, Hodgeboom, Brenneman, Sanders, Bahr,
Conner, and Johnson voted aye. Kennedy and Hash voted nay. The
motion carried 7-2.
GARDNER The nest public hearing was introduced on a request by Gardner Auction
AUCTION SERVICE Service for an amendment to the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. This
/ TEXT proposal would amend Chapter 27.25; Non -Conforming Lots, Uses and
AI ENDTf ,NT Structures, of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance by adding a new Section,
"Changes Permitted to lion -Conforming Uses" which would allow a
change to a different non -conforming use which would have an equal or
less impact.
Staff Report Wilson gave a detailed presentation of report #KZTA-96-4. The test
amendment proposal was reviewed in accordance with the necessary
statutory criteria, and based on the findings, staff recommended the text
amendment as proposed be denied.
Questions Johnson noted that the building became non -conforming when zoning
was imposed, and thus created a financial burden. In my opinion, this
should be a two-step process inasmuch as the City has imposed this
zoning and created a financial burden on individuals. There should be
some mitigation available. If the building were torn down and the
property sold, obviously there will be a differential. If the City were not
willing to do that, then the property owner should be able to apply for
another conditional use.
The Board discussed the options for the specific non -conforming use
under discussion, as an example.
Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the proposed text
amendment.
In Favor Todd Gardner, Gardner Auction Service, 1896 Airport Road, stated that
they purchased their property in 1978, and at that time, it was unzoned.
In 1994 we purchased property on Highway 93 South. When we looked
7