Loading...
05. Ordinance 1254 - Text Amendment - 2nd Dwelling in R-4Agenda -December 9, 1996 AGENDA ITEM 5 - PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A SECOND DWELLING IN R-4-ORDINANCE 1254-1st Reading BACKGROUND/CONSIDERATION: I have enclosed the November 19 report of FRDO's recommendations and board action concerning this agenda issue. Review of the staff evaluations of the possible effects, concerns, or problems with the proposed change is thorough and complete. RECOMMENDATION: Upon reviewing the staff evaluations and the subsequent board recommendation, I concur with the recommended zoning text amendment to the R-4 classification with the required conditional use permit and performance standards outlined within the report. ACTION REQUIRED: Approval of the text amendment will require passage of ORDINANCE 1254. This will be the first reading for this ordinance. 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 amended 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 houses; a second proposal to amend Section 27.22.020(2) to add accessory single-family dwelling in he Supplementary Regulations Section on accessory uses, noting that Th 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 Fathead 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\ord1254.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: S7X_T_T01f_1 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" S-ECTION-_11 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) 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. 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 granting of a variance from the property 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. SEGTI-ON_-l-11. 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), etc - (2) (a1A_12J, noncommercial domestic storage buildings associated with multi -family dwellings and off-street loading shall be permitted. SE_=S?�I_1V. 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 a=ez$gr_ _single family-:- 2 per dwelling unit. SY1CTI 0V - _SL. 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 r 1996. Douglas D. Rauthe, Mayor ATTEST: Debbie Giffford, CMC Clerk of Council j:\wp\ordl254.wpd 4 DEC Flathead Regional Development 723 Sth Avenue East - Room 414 c� CIIT &WJ LJ November 19, 1996 Clarence Krepps, City Manager City of Kalispell P.O. Drawer 1997 Kalispell, MT 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 R-4 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 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. 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 Iots 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 .Nlanager 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 -CO UNTY PLANNING BOARDAND ZONING COMMISSION i Therese Fox Hash President TFH/SK/eo Attachments: KZTA-96-3 packet Attachment A Petition Draft Minutes 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 .r E, W.H.# AMENDMENTSTEXT i THE KAUSPELL ZONING ORDINANCE AS RECOMMENDED i : i t 211l i f • M LLS S L, 6 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. 2. Add the fallowing to Section 27.22.020(2)(a), which specifies the permitted accessory uses in the R-1 through R-5 districts: 12) Accessory sin Twee family dwellings in the R-4 district only, subject to the following requirements: (i). No more than two dwelling units per lot is petYnitted. The lot must conform to the minimum lot area requirement of the underlying zoning district Cu). Maximum floor area of the accessory single family dwelling is 1000 square feet Maximum height is 25 feet. that justifies the of a variance from these setback requirements. (iv�. An accessory single family dwelling may not be rented or leased as a separate residence unless the prop!t-M owner maintains permanent residence in the 12dm ry dwelling, variance from the property 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 famildwelling_ 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) except Q2 a�(U2 , 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 Sin e Family 2 per dwelling unit H: \...\TRANSMIT\ 1996\KZTA96-3.TRM W.H. RINKENBACH ETEXT AMENDMENT TO TBE KALISPELL ZONING ORDINANCE FRDO STAFF REPORT #KZTA-96-3 NOVEMBER 6, 1996 A report to the Kalispell City -County Funning 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. A. Petitioner: W.H. Rinkenbach P.O. Box 914 Kalispell, MT 59901 B. ProposedAmendments: 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. 1 0 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. 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. 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 terms 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. S.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 owtl 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. Density 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, 2 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. Tenancy 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 S. Will the requested change promote public health and e�neral 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). 6. 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. Will the requested zoning prevent the overcrowding Of 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-S, 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. Z 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). 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. 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: (i). No more than two dwelling units per lot is permitted. The lot must conform to the minimum lot area requirement of the underlyingzoning oning 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 granting of 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 dwelling. N M. If a lot with an accessory single familydwellingis subdivided, the existence of the second dwelling shall not be considered a sr)ecial condition or circumstance that ment 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 Accessory Single Family: 2 per dwelling unit. H:\ ... \KZTA\96\KZTA96-3 . RPT N. KALISPELL CITY-COL'NZY PI -IL NING BOARD AND ZONING COib1--\-IISSION MINUTES OF MEETING NOVEMBER 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. AN members present voted aye. SA,NL-kRIT_' N 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 heating will be rescheduled to the December Request for meeting. Continuance SOMERS LAND The first public hearing was introduced on a request by Dennis Carver on COMPANY ZONE behalf of Somers Land Company for annexation into the City of Kalispell CHANGE / FROM and initial zoning from County R4, Two -Family Residential, to City R-4, COUNTY R-4 TO Residential. The property proposed for annexation is west of Airport CITY R-4 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. i 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 R-4 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 - UPON family residential; B-2, general commercial; I-1, light industrial; and P-1, AN, NF—XA.TION 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. The City R-1 would be more applicable to what exists there. F) Bob Meerkatz, 1604 South Woodland, stated that he is trying 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 35 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 allowed 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-l. 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 2nd 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 FAMILY would allow two detached single-family houses on one lot subject to HOUSES ON ONE specific performance standards. LOT IN R-4 ZONE 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-9G-3. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the text amendment. In Favor Brian Wood, 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 R4 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 of an existin structures shall not be considered a special condition or circumstance that justifies the granting Q a variance from these setback requirements." On page 8, 2v, "If a lot with x sin e family dw� is subdivided, the existence of the second dweDin shall not be considered a s ecial condition or circumstance that 'ugifies the granting _Qf a variance from the propeM development standards Section 27.07.0 ." 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, "An accessory singie family dwelling may not be rented or leased as a separate residence unless the proper owner maintains permanent residence in the pn*m 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 (iiii) 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. Board Discussion The Board discussed how 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 reviewed. 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. Areawide, 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 Iots. 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 Adjustment 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 Wood 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 Kerzman 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-96-3 as findings of fact and recommend approval of the text amendment as outlined in the report, 6 except that it be changed from a pern4teed to a conditional use in # 1 and #2. Brenneman seconded. Amended Motion Carlson moved to amend the motion to limit the test 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 carved 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 text amendment to the R-4 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 next 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�NDMEENT Structures; of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance by adding a new Section, "Changes Permitted to Non -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 text 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 WE THE UNDERSIGNED support William Rinkenbach's request to amend the City of Kalispell Zoning Ordinance to conditionally allow a second detached single-family dwelling on lots located in the city's R-4 zone district. We feel that two separate single-Camily dwellings on a lot will pose no greater threat to the/general welfa,than will a duplex on the same lot. C� 2. A ue _577 3. 4. 6. 7. A4-t L'j 0 10. set J 14. 15. 0 lam/( r 16. 20. !&L� r -its L vv t WE THE UNDERSIGNED support William Finkenbach's request to amend the City of Kalispell Zoning Ordinance to conditionally allow a second detached single-family dwelling on lots located in the city's R-4 zone district. We feel that two separate single-family dwellings on a lot will pose no greater threat to the general welfare than will a duplex on the same lot. 2. 3. 4. Ito -V4�� 5. �i 6. 7. 26. A"I c 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. WE THE UNDERSIGNED support William Rinkenbach's request to amend the City of Kalispell Zoning Ordinance to conditionally allow a second detached single-family dwelling on lots located in the city's R-4 zone district. We feel that two separate single-family dwellings on a lot will pose no greater threat to the general welfare than will a duplex on the same lot. 2. -zz 7--A 4. 5,-7_��' 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. is. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.