Loading...
Zoning Ordinance Update Memorandum and Staff ReportPlanning Department 201 lst Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 758-7940 Fax: (406) 758-7739 www.kalisnell.com/nIannin2 REPORT TO: Kalispell Mayor and City Council Kalispell City Planning Board FROM: PJ Sorensen, Planner II Jane Howington, City Manager SUBJECT Zoning Ordinance Update MEETING DATE: March 8, 2010 (Joint work session) BACKGROUND: The City of Kalispell is proposing a text amendment which would revise the zoning ordinance as a whole. The amendment can best be characterized as a p thorough update of the g ordinance which last received a comprehensive review in 1993. The update is also a fine-tuning to make the document more user-friendly and to better reflect the city as it looks today. y Over the course of nine months, the Kalispell Planning Board held a series of seven work sessions discussing the update. Throughout the process, staff has taken several steps designed to notify the g y public and generate input. A mailing list was developed listing all architects, builders, developers, community groups, and other y g p s who commonly use the zoning ordinance. The list contained 80 names. Initially these folks were sent an outline summarizing the process, timing of the workshops, and the goals of the update, along with a link to our website. Both a marked -up (i.e. showing additions and deletions) and a clean version of the proposed update have been posted on-line for community review since last March. An open house was publicized and held at city hall from 4:00 to 9:00 PM on November 19, 2009 to answer any questions and receive any comments from the community. We received good coverage g from the Daily Inter Lake prior to the meeting. In addition, everyone on the mailinglist was i personally invited. Several people, including two architects, attended this open house. At the December 8, 2009 planning board meeting, the board approved a motion to bringthe proposal forward p p for formal consideration at a public hearing. Those on the mailing list were made aware of the December 8, 2009 planning board meeting and were again personally invited to the January 8 2010 public hearing. The goals of the zoning ordinance update are: (1) Eliminate ambiguities in the text; (2) Improve readability by eliminating outdated terms and simplifying language; (3) Reduce the number of zones by consolidating the RA-2 with the RA-3 multi -family zones and the B-2 with the B-3 business zones; (4) Streamline and standardize property aeveiopment standards (setbacks, minimum lot sizes, etc); (5) Review the intents of each zone and adjust uses accordingly-, (6) Create a matrix which lists all uses by zone for quick reference-, (7) Create a single sheet summary of lot size and setbacks by zone for quick reference; (8) Update the definitions secti on to reflect current terms and uses; (9) Include visuals and pictures in the ordinance to help clarify points-, (10) Provide a better connection between the zoning ordinance and the growth policy-, (11) Provide a method to allow minor administrative adjustments from some development standards to create a more flexible document-, (12) Improve our administrative conctitional use permit process which would substantially reduce the time required for the review of certain types of uses-, (13) Amend ® regulations in the downtown area by reducing the number of required spaces and protecting residential areas from encroachment by commercial parking lots; and (14) Make minor modifications to exi It standards as necessary. The Kalispell City Planning Board met on January 12, 2010, and held a public hearing to consider the request. Kalispell Planning Department staff presented staff report #KZTA-10-01 providing details of the proposal and the evaluation. Staff recommended the board adopt the findings of fact as proposed and recommend to the council that the amendment be adopted. Written comments were submitted by Merna Terry and Charles Lapp, who also spoke at the public hearing supporting the changes and bringing up several additional"issues as well. The planning board did address those issues. Their comments are attached to the draft minutes from the meeting. There were no other public comments offered. A motion was made and seconded to recommend approval of the zoning text amendment. There was also a motion to amend the proposal which related to procedure for public hearings for conditional use permits, along with a reference change under architectural review from the Redevelopment Area to "Kalispell." The amendment passed on a 7-0 vote. The main motion as amended was approved on vote. RECOMMENDATION: Council direct staff to bring the proposal forward for formal consideration at the next available regular Council meeting. FISCAL EFFECTS: Minor positive impacts. ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Council eA k PJ Sorensen Planner II Keport compiled: February 26, 201 * c: Theresa VA-lite, Kalispell City Clerk -lit'""`- '��1Z.tl�,` Jane Howington City Manager PUNNING ING FOR THE FUTURE March 1, 2010 MON T"A. Jane Howington, City Manager City of Kalispell P.O. Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903 Re: Zoning Text Amendment — Zoning Ordinance Update Dear Jane: Planning Department 201 1ST Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 758-7940 Fag: (406) 758-7739 www.kalispell.com/planning The Kalispell City Planning Board met on January 12, 2010, and held a public hearing to consider a request from the City of Kalispell for a zoning text amendment which would revise the zoning ordinance as a whole. The amendment can best be characterized as a significant update of the ordinance which was last updated in its entirety in 1993. The update is also a fine-tuning to make the document more user- friendly and to better reflect the city as it looks today. Kalispell Planning Department staff presented staff report #KZTA-10-01 providing details of the proposal and the evaluation. The proposal used the text developed through seven work sessions with the planning g board which occurred over a period of nine months. Staff recommended the board adopt the findings of fact as proposed and recommend to the council that the amendment be adopted. Written comments were submitted by Merna Terry and Charles Lapp. Both also spoke at the public hearing supporting the changes and bringing up several additional issues as well that were addressed by the planning board. Those. comments are attached to the draft minutes from the meeting. No one else spoke either for or against the proposal and the public hearing was closed. A motion was made and seconded to recommend approval of the zoning text amendment. There was a motion to amend the proposal which related to procedure for public hearings for conditional use permits and also changed a reference under architectural review from the Redevelopment Area to "Kalispell." The amendment passed on a 7-0 vote. The main motion was then approved on a 7-0 vote. Please schedule this matter for the appropriate city council meeting. You may contact this board or P.J. Sorensen at the Kalispell Planning Department if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, Kalispell City Planning Board Bryan H. Schutt President Attachments.. Staff report #KZTA- 10-0 1 and application materials Draft minutes of the 1/ 12/10 planning board meeting in Draft zoning ordinance dated January 12, 2010 with markup changes Draft ® ord M*ance dated January 12, 2010 clean copy c w/ Att.- Theresa White, Kalispell City Clerk IF-k-11 I Ut CITY OF KALISPELL - ZONING REGULATIONS KALISPELL PLANNING DEPARTMIENT STAFF REPORT #KZTA-10-1 JANUARY 12, 2010 This is a report to the Kalispell City Planning Board and the Kalispell City Council regarding a request for a text amendment to the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance to update and revise provisions throughout the ordinance. A public hearing has been scheduled before the Planning Board for January 12, 2010, beginning at 7:00 PM in the Kalispell City Council Chambers. The Planning Board will forward a recommendation to the Kalispell City Council for final action BACKGROUND INFORMATION The City of Kalispell is proposing a text amendment which would revise the zonm*g ordinance as a whole. The amendment can best be characterized as an update of the ordinance. The update is a fine-tuning to make the document more user-friendly and to better reflect the City as it looks today. Over the past nine months, the Planning Board has held a series of seven work sessions discussing the update. Throughout the process, staff has taken several steps designed to notify the public and generate input. Architects, builders, developers, community groups, and others were sent letters (about 80 in all) outlining the process and the goals of the update, along with a link to our website. Both a marked -up (i.e. showing additions and deletions) and a clean version of the proposed update have been posted on-line for community review since March. An open house was held on November 19 to answer any questions and receive any comments. Invitations were sent out to the same group which received the earlier mailings, and the Interlake ran an article discussing the update, including an announcement of the open house. Two architects attended the open house to learn more about the changes. At the December 8 Planning Board meeting, the Board approved a motion to bring the proposal forward for formal consideration at a public hearing. A 0 . ® Jane Howington, City Manager City of Kalispell P.O. Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903 (406) 758-7703 B. Area Effected by the Proposed Changes.- Any property within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Kalispell may be affected by the proposed changes. C. Proposed ® The update has included efforts to: (1) Eliminate ambiguities in the text; (2) Improve readability by eliminating outdated terms and simplifying language; (3) Reduce the number of zones by consolidating the RA-2 with the RA-3 multi- family zones and the B-2 with the B-3 business zones; (4) Streamline and standardize property development standards (setbacks, minimum lot sizes etc) (5) Review the intents of each zone and adjust uses accordingly; (6) Create a ® which lists all uses by zone for is reference; (7) Create a single sheet summary of lot size and setbacks by zone for quick reference- (8) Update the definitions section to reflect current terms and uses" (9) Include visuals and pictures in the ordinance to help clarify points (this 18 on -going) (10) Provide a better connection between the zoning ordinance and the growth policy; (11) Provide a method to allow minor administrative adjustments from some development standards to create a more flexible document- (12) Improve our administrative conditional use permit process which would substantially reduce the time required for the review of certain types of uses 0 (13) Amend pa-rking regulations in the downtown area by reducing the number of required spaces and protecting residential areas from encroachment by commercial parking lots; and (14) Make minor modifications to existing standards as necessary. The specific changes are included in the att-ached drafts, which are hereby incorporated by reference. One draft is a 44clean" version which provides the full version of the update. The second draft is a "marked -up" version, which includes underlined text (for new language or indicating where sections were moved to) and strike -outs (for deleted language or indicating where sections were moved from). Please note that, while the marked -up version includes the substantive changes it does not include final e editin(e.. typos,• ral* which were made, ignme g g nt, etc) because the resulting maxks tended to be more confusing. The statutory basis for reviewing a change in zoning is set forth by 76-2-303, M.C.A. Findings of Fact for the zone change request are discussed relative to the itemized criteriI described by 76-2-304, M.C.A. 1. Is the zoning regulation made in accordance with the growth polia? One of the stated goals of the update is to strengthen the relationship between the growth policy and the zoning ordinance. For example, the provisions relIting to the intent of each zone in the ordinance specifically refer back to the growth policy. 2. Is the zoning regiilation designed to secure s.afety from fire and other dangers? The zoning ordinance includes property development standards, The standards are intended to provide a more consistent development pattern and create on -site improvements which minimize the risk of fire, panic, and other iangers both on a particular property as well as the surrounding area. Is the zoning regLilation desimed to -promote public health, public safet y, anct _. te ggn r elfa-re? The general health, safety, and welfare of the public will be promoted by creating a more predicable, orderly, and consistent environment for both residential and commercial uses, The ordinance also maintains an appropriate separation between non -compatible uses. .4r. Is the zoning r tion designed to facilitate the adequate -provision of - transportation, water, sewerage, schools, -Parks,_ and other --public reguirements? As mentioned above, the zoning ordinance creates a more predictable, orderly, and consistent development pattern. That pattern allows for a more efficient allocation of public resources and better provision of public services. Does the zoning regLilation consider the reasonable -provision of adequate light and air? The property development standards help provide for adequate separation between adjacent structures. 6. Does the zoning regulation consider the effect on motorized and nonmotorize trans-Portation.-gystems? The zoning ordinance encourages more orderly development, which tends to improve transportation throughout the city and lessen congestion. 7.. Does the zoning regulation consider the -promotion of compatible urban growthe The zoning ordinance creates density limitations appropriate for a given are which help prevent the overcrowding of land and undue concentrations o people. By providing appropriate uses within each district and separatio between non -compatible uses, the most appropriate use of land throughout th urban area is encouraged. The ordinance also provides a more predicable orderly, and consistent environment for both residential and commercial uses.] 8. Does the zoning regulation consider the character of the district and its -peculiar suitabilitK for particular uses? "Phe ordinance assigns zones to properties throughout the city based upon ths growth policy, surrounding uses, and the characteristics of the property, including, but not limited to, physical characteristics and available public services. The ordinance takes into consideration the stated intent of each district as the basis for specific standards applicable to properties within the i-istrict. 9. Poes the zo.ning regulation consider conserving the value of buildings and encouraging the most a-p-propriate use of land throughout the jurisdictional area? Building values will be conserved by providing reasonable standards withi zoning districts by encouraging predictable, orderly, and consisten development within a given area. The ordinance takes into consideration th stated intent of each district as the basis for the allowed uses within-t-h district. By providing appropriate uses within each district and separatio between non -compatible uses, the most appropriate use of land throughout th jurisdiction is encouraged. Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board adopt the fngs in staff report KZTA-10-1 as revised and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the proposed amendment be adopted as provided herein. =5 KALISPELL CITY PLANNING BOARD & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 12, 2010 CALL TO ORDER AND rThe regular meeting of the Kalispell City Planni___ g­ Board and ROLL CALL Zonm*g Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Board members present were: Bryan Schutt, John HM'chey, Rick Hull, C.M. (Butch) Clark, Chad Graham, Troy Mendius and Richard Griffin. P.J. Sorensen, Sean Conrad and Tom Jentz represented the Kalispell Planning Department. There were 9 people in the audience. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mendius moved and H y seconded a motion to approve the _wqw minutes of the Decem,* 2009 meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and------Z;0'nmg' ission. ROLL CALL The motion unanimously on -a -rou call vote. S PUBLIC COMMENT Steve Eckels"'. econd,.Avenue West Kalispell said he is representing him.§ group"called Quiet Skies He &.1he board to"'consiaer rezoning airp tne cit y ort property to ght schooSd He rev , ie-.w-.ed 6,_`assurances thi -,'Were developed by his organization of --.-,,Kalispell have declined to sign and 'd­ the FA�44 Cit addb y 1hose assurances,----:.,, mentioned Quiet Skies is having a meeting on Thursday at T --­_9:00 pm 4-Ahe Outlaw Inn and he added one of the speakers, , ince"', ensen wh ."*is Polson's Airport Manager, cancelled due to the ur M_-an employee of Stelling Engineers. He reviewed ging the"duties of th&Polson Airport Manager and indicated their a* irport is governed however Kalispell's airport is not. He also indicated the Kalispell airport won't be expanded because the a irport is not "going to pass a legitimate environmental assessment. is said this board can save the city a tremendous amount of t im e and money by putting an end to the anarchy that is going on down there by governing the airport tbrough zoning. He also indicated that contrary to what others have said it is safe to have flight training at the Glacier International Airport. The opponents of Quiet Skies will say that they were here first and he would like to remind the board that the airport is owned by 22,000 residents and the flight school is here as a guest. Eckels quoted the Montana Constitution which states, "We give thanks to God for the quietness of our great state." He doesn't know how we can thank God for the quietness and at the same time all more is to come in. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of January 12, 2010 Page I of 7 Eckels has been in touch with David Cole and Bruce Lutlio regarding a grant to look at alternatives for developing the airport property. The location of the airport is a poor choice and serves a select few and the place to make changes is in the zoning. He urged the board to do what is in the best interest of the most people. Eckels submitted an outline of his comments for the record. A cop is attached to the minutes. Peter Hoag, 150 Liahona Lane said he is before the board to petition on behalf of the stud' - ts of Flathead High School to open Four Mile Drive to conn0ttion to Spring Creek Road due to the irastic amount of traffi estion during activities at KidSports. Schutt asked st�hen there a` onmig text amendments, such as the one recom m-eiided by Mr. Eci�6 is meeting with the planning office the cd'itect first step in that pro' and Jentz said yes and he added there W-�# be a fil� fee to pr_6�' 0-s the application. Jentz no t, _At" 'amendmentg'Io. the zoning inance ed the. board "is".lo.' ok ord' and could inco� e that discussion'ifito this process. di5cpssion re"" arding the Four Mile Drive connection wi. tdth1' irfrnc . ed in the OrOwth Poli A." Transportation Plan for the future. The oomst I be re eveiopers- of B1, one quired to construct the portion ­', - 0 the connec-or -f f rom thd`­,eastern property boundarx" to their Y western property boundary which will include a major grad' ing 6-0 A,- and the'developers of the Starling property will be required ion as part of a phase that won't be completed nnigh�the­connect "for some t'ime.-,.,, Note*. both developments have been postponed due to -...the economy.'' There',,was further discussion regarding the traffic generated by -".KidSports- working with KidSports to br' ing another connection Jnrough to the north to the West Reserve Loop; the effect the ading of the hill will have on the property to the south; the road connections invo and whether the Alternate Ived in the 911 project, Truck Route racts would include the Four Mile Drive connection. Jentz added the Alternate Truck Route would be constructed over where the future alignment of Four Mile Drive will be located but does not include the connection as a part of their contract. TEXT AMENDMENT: A request by the City of Kalispell for a zoning text amendment. The amendment can be_ as an update of the ordinance UPDATE OF THE KALISPELL CITY ZONING as a whole. The update is a fine-tuning to make the document jI ORDINANCE ;I more user-friendly and to better reflect the City as it looks today. The update has included efforts to (a) eliminate ambiguities and Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of January 12, 2010 Page 2 of 7 outdated terms; (b) consolidate the RA-2 with the RA-3 multi-_ %J family zones and the B-2 with the B-3 business zones; (c) streamline and standardize property development standards; (d) review the intents of each zone and adjust uses accordingly, (e) update the definitions section to reflect current terms and uses; (� provide a better connection between the zoning ordinance and the growth policy, (g) provide a method to allow minor administrative adjustments from some development standards; (h) modify the administrative conditional use permit process; (i) amend parking regulations in the downtown area by reducing the number of required spaces, and 0) make.--, other minor modifications to existing standards as necessary, STAFF REPORT KZTA-10-01 P.J. Sorensen reprpspn., mg -.,,,.,.,.the Kalispell Planning Department reviewed staff report.",�KZ TA-10 0 1. Sorensen said,,--_-.f e-',�p lannffig board has'.--s ent r part of the last P. 9 months Wo"�'"'. on an update to th&,,-Kalispell Zo Ordinance ning characterized to try to 'b 'M�""g it up to what the city dly. To incorporate and m e more userArien looks like toda y", ak cofi�lmity *mvolven!6nt,,',"---'s-"ia"&ha!s from the b 77-7, eginning, posted both a `up,.and clean V r ,� :. the draft on the website and sent out 3 s eIt' 0 f ma s to ovee�,,` interested parties (ounaers, engineers is,_-,::-�:etc). An open house was held archite:Ots, plahh6ks� Jealto_", in "d saff reed some good input Novemhqr�..to answ'er-'.:.questions an tceiv ut, .-..Tnrougho .,that r..ye ss *&ensen revi6,�ked 14 points that summarizes the changes for the .."WIlIcn is In ded the staff report. b. d in -....Sorensen said- he. wanted to point out that added to the current draft was,,a lowing sman scale project m*g signs on Main Street which was a re4 st by the Architectural Review Committee and other downtown organ-izations. orensen added the it that were discussed at work sessions but irenot included in the draft are the single-family des* ign standards and the entrance corridor standards which may be moved forward in the future as separate amendments. Prior tote meeting staff distributed a revised staff report to reflect recent changes in the Montana Code used for analyzing criteria in the staff reports; and a copy of written comments received from Merna Terry along with a staff memo to respond to Ms. Terry's concerns. Staff reconunends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt the fmdings in staff report #KZTA-10-01 -as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell it Council that Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of January 12, 2010 Page 3 of 7 the proposed amendments be adopted per the draft submitted. BOARD QUESTIONS None. PUBLIC HEARING Merna Terry, 1505 Whalebone Drive said she sent a letter (copy attached) and received a response from staff. She also spoke to Sorensen, which she added was very helpful. Terry said Sorensen told her that the changes to the setbacks were to make sure that driveways are not so short that cars are encroaching on the sidewalks and therefore reduce need for enforcement of the sidewalk ordinance. She her major concern is in R-4 & R-5 zones where she and her husband build homes. --and the front setback is currently 15 feet which, she added really-. s- up to be 17 feet since the setback is ev measured from the eave.- Th-`_ -."f' have been building the garages and driveways like that •sipce�:, - , 9.?�, Their homeowners have rarely asked for longer driveways, because they like larger back yards. Her N 19 concern with a n1ffiinud rivew ay length is the cost to the .."ot �m.:-_;, homeowner e $17.00 a sq­",--." -foot and end up costing the 'hl would not be appropriate in homeowner- an-:additib onal $ 918. 00 whi- neighborhoods- ---`.--`fbat are consider affor'dable. She drove around -instances where the several nei hboi 64s aA­only a f6w, 9 ,saw vohi�je, was encroach�m' '.46''the sidewalk anct ir she was voting she 9. te would" Vo­ to change t - e,,, nveway mmimum requirement to 17 feet instead..of-20".feet. Terry sai4,-,..the updat'-'does make','-tbe regulations easier to read and -.1 A ...'she thank6 the '136 a r(i an . a .§taff for their time and efforts. Charles Lapp" 3230 Columbia Falls Stage Road said he also owns .�pro' dt in Kalispell. Lapp referred tote attached letter® His Y" ent.s-.m.clud6d.the following. 0 Removal of Manufactured Home Parks from districts 0 Reference to "Redevelopment" Area in the Architectural 'Review section Simplify standards and focus on the purpose of the standards to protect health, safety and general welfare 0 Increase building height limits 0 Written & oral comments submitted at public hearings Overly specific definitions Lapp thanked the board for the time spent in this endeavor. He added the board and staff did a good job. MOTION Hffichev moved and Clark seconded a motion to adopt the findings in staff report #KZTA-10-01 as amended and recommend to the Kalispell it Council that the proposed amendments be adopted per the draft ordinance submitted. Kalispell City Planning Boari Minutes of the meeting of January 12, 2010 Page 4 of 7 BOARD DISCUSSION Clark asked for staff s comments regarding the statements made by Ms. Terry. Jentz said some of the subdivisions she referenced were built in an era when there was a minimum 5 foot boulevard with a 5 foot sidewalk leaving 3-5 feet of public R/W on the back side of the sidewalk. In the subdivision Terry was talking about, homeowners with a 15 ® garage setback actually park over the R/W now. The city council recently amended the city design and construction standards so that the sidewalks 'in new subdivisions will be moved to the outside edge of the R/W where they used to be traditionany built. The proposed 20 ® minimum driveway length would compensate for-'t ' the c cart-. hat change. There is an ordinane in city where s canno _qv.,�p -nang, driveways and what we don't want to do is creatforcement situation. Sorensen added for a single fap*esidence with a single car garage a 25 foot driveway was requirect'd- -,,,,that has been dropped down to 20 feet to allow fQt-,�. me averagift'g', out to try and standardize the �J,�ots there in regulations. said in some pr"( is go' g to be a slight cost increas others a slight cost'd6c"rease. HM'chey noted a-'a''other thin' the board w" ,,.-t.r ying to accomplish wa§' 0 IP.Jucte the garage,:.by utting it back 5 eet.fr m the rest of the str"a­ Jentz sdid."that falls under the ®a design stand'. s W__"__"hibh will be addr-essed at a later date. Jentz noted in the R-3 wA&them-was,.,a 20 fo6 etback and now it has been changed e �o.--- co ­t­'­`­me5& closer but the garage still stays at to allow'; hous 2 fi 0 oo Qtb There was le)ftgthy discussion regard* Mr. Lapp's reference to Mg SectI011'. 27.34.Q� (a) which reads, "Written and oral publ* ic 9 c -6mment1',,-receivect-*-___at the hearin shall be based on fact and not _Weculatioh­7�--.`aiid it was decided to delete Section 27.34.030(a) and 4­0 am -pd Section 27.34.030(b) to read as follows: "Testimony should b e sp` Q' c I fi c, in estabfishm* the level and degree of Posieto e and IV negative,zimpacts associated with the project." 11 asked if it is true that manufactured mobile home parks are not u Rowed in the city and Sorensen said the reason that was dropped as a use is because it is almost like saying single-family residential subdivisions are a permitted use in a zone because once you create the subdivision in a zone that allows single-family residential use and you can put in manufactured homes whether it is I ®$ of 100 or 100 out of 100. Sorensen continued it didn't eliminate manufactured homes as a use it just doesn't list manufactured home parks as a use within the zoning districts. The existing mobile home parks are grandfat here d in but are not allowed as a new use which is the way the city has dealt with them *in the past and no changes were proposed in the ordinance. Further discussion was held. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of January 12, 2010 Page 5 of 7 Schutt said he finds the new version of the —zo ning___ relatively readable and he is in favor of moving the updates forward. Graham asked for further clarification on the 20 foot setback for garages and how that would be measured. Sorensen said currently setbacks are measured from the property line and that will not change. What Jentz was referencing, Sorensen said, is in existing subdivisions the sidewalks might be located several feet from the property line and the vehicles may be encroaching into the right-of- way but not over the sidewalk. If you move the sidewalk to the edge of the property line vehicles blocking the sidewalk becomes more of an issue. Jentz ex further. Jentz said regarding _'th&---_'i6ference to the "Redevelopment Area"' staff thinks that shd -.be de"16ted and it should reference Kalispell instead. The bo --agree( to that---,,- amendment. Sorensen explained farther. Hinchey asked--.ifthe development st andards and the revised use categories by zonp�,._ wo-d1d:--,'.­be *included' in--, me document and So`�'pnsen said yes attaeli "as an appendix. ffifichey said he found 1, v th e:,'tb'ls-,to be extrem""e" useful. questions regarding -Street Parking Design the Off Standardg-.',under , .'red -and noted there are no references qpi on-coifor fio �- useq,,--: -and the requirements for those uses. rmmg,n Sorensensail , -eneral noX n-:n ter ifthYrarLFye 'gal now there. is no need to add parking to comply with that Sorensen provided an example. to address another point Mr. Lapp brought up W z said h&,4nte regarding lighting and signage. When you look at the lighting and signqg. codes there are a number of changes proposed but staff s focus was to reduce the number of sections that are repeated in other sections. — --"Sand Hull 'motion to approve t MOTION AMENDMENTS chutt moved seconded a he following amendments to the Kalispell City Zoning Ordinance Update: L Delete section 27.34.030(2)(a) and modify section 27.34.030(2)(b) to read as follows: "Testimony should be specific in establis the level and degree of positive or negative impacts associated with the project. 2. Remove the "Redevelopment Area" reference and add 'Walispff' to the Architectural Review Committee section 27.23.010(l). The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of January 12, 2010 Page 6 of 7 AMENDMENTS BOARD DISCUSSION Hinchey noted ® the sign regulations under projecting signs there is not an exception for the downtown area and he thought the maximum size of the signs was too large. Sorensen said the section Hinchey noted are general standards relating to projecting signs and it is more specific under section 27.24.110(4) were it lists the permitted signs in the B-2, B-45 B-55 1-1 and 1-2 zones. Most of the zones will allow projecting signs pursuant to the standards that HM*chey referenced. Sorensen continued on Main Street in the B-4 zone between Center and 8th-Street projecting signs from 9 to 15 square feet are allowed 1f1-'4`h1'­Y meet certain standards. Hinchey thought that might be co,n-,tusm*g and Sorensen provided further clarification. ROLL CALL ® ORIGINAL The motion,, as. a: ed, passed."unanimously on a roll call vote. MOTION OLD ® None. NEW BUSINESS. Planning BQ Work Program. Staff suggested movind-r 6 this­.�`-ite'i n-Ab a work sessio tt- chuse 'conded a motion to move the 2010 Plannin rd W&k-Program -discussion under e new us ss o businss tto a work sessio'n-,,imniodiato,"l��.1, fio his meet* '-'--Vowing t Ing- ROLL CALL The motion pa­s's , ed unanimously on a roll call vote. ADJOURN The meet1pg,4aiourned at approximately 8:30 p.m. NEXT MEETING Th& next re ® In gular meetg of the Kalispell City Planning Board and' ® Commission is scheduled for February 9, 2010 at .70 -00 p.4A. in the Kalispell C*ty Council Chambers located at 201 'First Avenue East in Kalispell. The next work session of the Kalispell it Planning Board and Loning Commission is tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, February 23, 2010, at T-00 the Kalispell City Council Chambers located at 201 First Avenue East in Kalispell. Bryan H. Schutt Michelle Anderson President Recording Secretary APPROVED as submitted/corrected: /lit Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of January 12, 2010 Page 7 of 7 Steve Eckels. 619 Second Ave. W. Kalispell Planning/Zoning Meeting January 12, 2010 a Request. Please re -zone the airport property to eliminate flight schools! FAA suggestion Invitation to Thursday's meeting,,: Outlaw Inn 70*00-9,0900 On the agenda are several resolutions m'cludm*g study of altemate development options Vince Jennison gagged by Stellj'jag Associates Ungovernable vs. Governable: the difference between Kalispell and PoIsorJ M The problem with the middle man.- Red Eagle Pays the Rent Threats to members of the plan=* Q office -- Threats to Vince Jennison What they will say: who's here first.? who owns the airport who is a guest of we stockholders? 406-841-2770 A avid Cole - Department of Commerce; Community Development Grants, Morrison and Maierle - 406-752-2216 "A poor choice" for an airport Serves a "select few" (some with money including the 11ilton) Streetscape Associates - Bruce Lutz - 892-3492 These things have a "snowball" effect! CONSTRUCTION, Inc. Iamr daC411, io*eesfed kaitdee aJ. a�jcarda6te homes 7 Meridian Court -Kalispell, MT 59901- (406) 755-7516- Fax (406) 755-1546 • www.ronterryconstruction.com January 11, 2010 City of Kalispell Planning.Board 201 1 st Avenue Fast Kalispell, MT 59901 Dear City of Kalispell Planning .Board, D ECEOVE JAN 112010 MUSPELL PLANNING DEPARTMENT I Just took some tinne to preview the zoning text amendment m preparing for the public hearing on January 12, 2010. It looks Like you spent some time making the document easier to read and navigate. Thank you for the time you've taken to work on this document. I have concerns about the front setbacks for homes versus garages. It appears that in all residential zones the minimum front setback for homes is 5' less than the minimum front/side setback for garages. I am guessing that these setbacks are in place because there are people who feel that homes with garages that extend in front of the rest of the building are aesthetically unappealing. I believe that the aesthetics of extended garages is a personal opinion and that the affordability of extended garages far outweighs the possible aesthetics on this issue. Rowever, the end effect of the setbacks will most likely be that builders will build homes with extended garages but with longer driveways and smaller back yards that are more expensive because a longer driveway will be needed. The reason many builders of affordable homes include layouts with garages extending in front of the homes is a combination of narrow lot layouts and affordability. On narrow lots it is necessary to use the space behind the garage for living space in order to build homes large enough for families to live in. I have spent some thne trying to come up with options for building homes affordably for people on city lots which don't include garages extending in front of the homes. The options I have come up with are building homes with detached garages in alleys and 2 The other issue I was M*terested in is signage. I am not sure what changes have been made from the original s1g;i ordinance because I didn't take the time to review the changes line by I "me, but would encourage allowing tbree off -premise temporary signs for real estate for sale in residential areas. It is difficult to sell from model home's m' a neighborhood when you are unable to direct peoplfm to the home. Thank you for your titne and attention working on these issues. I know you have spent many volunteer hours working on behalf of the citizens of Kalispell and I appreciate your time and efforts, I have spent the better part of today going through the proposed zoning regs and find that overall it appears to be a workable update. I do however have several comments on some of the changes, an seeing as how there are over 400 pages in the two versions it will take some tnore review to comprehend all of it. - I In section 27.34.030 it talks about conditional use permits, specifically 2(a) "'Written and oral public comment received at the public hearing SHALL be based on fact not speculation." How is the Planning Board or Council *going to proof every comment that is made by the public on a land use issue, most of which are very emotional to begin with? There was legislation at the last session that tried to insert "credible and verifiable" into the zoning codes and the legislators said it was up to the planning board and staff to M* ake that determination after the comments were made and that sometimes in these emotional hearings people just need to vent and they have to have the right to do it. That is like saying that the lighting and sign ordinances have to be based on some type of danger to the public. When we all know that they are based on someone not liking certain types of signs and lights. 2(b) says "Testimony should be specific in maintaining the level and degree of negative 'Impacts associated with the project" I'm not sure what this says but here again this is something that is going to be mandated t the public making the comment and are they going to have this explained to them before each hearing and is this just a way to squelch public input. Sometimes the public haven't done a study to determine "the level and degree of negative impact" they just don't want to be next to a proposed project and the need to be allowed to say that. Lastly in the definition section it appears that it has been attempted to define as many terms as can be thought up, however I believe that by being overly specific maybe some uses are than left out. As an example""Auction Yards/Livestock" is defined but ""Auction Yards/indoor" is actually the use allowed in several districts. "'Schools, Commercial" is defined in detail but this is the only type of school in the definitions when there are several different types used in the different districts. Just my thoughts. Thank Vou for the '• spent on thi's encleavol WIRMIMM