Kalispell planning commission recommends 2‑foot eave encroachment into residential setbacks

The Kalispell City Planning Commission voted 4‑0 on Sept. 9 to recommend that the Kalispell City Council adopt a zoning text amendment allowing eaves to extend up to 2 feet into required setbacks in R‑1 through R‑5 residential zones. The commission approved staff report KZTA‑25‑01 as findings of fact and forwarded the proposal to the council for first reading on Oct. 6.

Staff described the proposal as a limited technical change to the municipal setback definition so that required setbacks could be measured to the vertical exterior wall rather than to the outermost projection such as eaves, and said the change would be implemented by adding a new supplemental section and footnotes referencing that section throughout the zoning code. Planning staff told the commission the amendment is intended to preserve a simple setbacks rule while allowing a two‑foot eave encroachment that other jurisdictions commonly permit.

Hayden Homes representative Peter Hagen spoke in support and said the change would align local rules with the International Residential Code and surrounding communities, and that “allowing eaves into the setbacks can create an additional 80 to 140 square feet of usable interior space” on some lots. Keesa Davidson, a local builder and owner of Iron Star Construction, read a letter from former city building inspector Shane Cook urging the amendment and asking that the code explicitly allow projections of 24 to 30 inches beyond the wall when they do not violate fire separation standards. Davidson said the change would reduce inconsistent interpretations across neighborhoods and help small‑lot development.

Planning staff warned the commission that building‑code fire‑protection requirements begin to apply as structures are sited within 5 feet of a property line and said adoption would likely prompt the city to require additional building‑permit details to demonstrate compliance with fire‑separation and other safety standards. Staff also noted that the amendment is limited to the R‑1 through R‑5 residential zones and that other, more complex encroachment approaches (for example percentage‑based calculations used by some cities) were intentionally avoided to keep administration simple.

During discussion commissioners asked whether the issue is widespread; staff said it arises most often on tighter lots where eaves and projections affect usable floor area. Commissioners also asked about snow‑shed and liability; staff replied those are typically private civil matters (for example trespass or property disputes) and said the amendment would not, in staff’s view, create a new legal exposure for the city.

The commission recorded votes from four members: Joshua Borgart (yes), Doug Kaufman (yes), Kate Walker (yes) and Rory Young (aye); the item passed on a 4‑0 vote and will appear for City Council first reading on Oct. 6. No formal modifications or amendments to the staff text were made by the commission at the Sept. 9 meeting.

Because this action was a recommendation to council rather than a final ordinance adoption, the amendment would not take effect until the council completes its readings and any ordinance adoption steps.

Decisions and next steps: The Planning Commission voted to adopt the staff report as findings of fact and forward the proposed zoning text amendment (file KZTA‑25‑01) to the City Council for consideration at its Oct. 6 first reading. Staff said additional building‑permit requirements would likely be required if the council adopts the text change.