03-14-95KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING
MARCH 14, 1995
CALL TO ORDER The regularly scheduled meeting of the Kalispell City -
AND ROLL CALL County Planning Board and Zoning Commission was called
to order at 7:07 p.m. by President Therese Hash. Board
members present were Pam Kennedy, FredHodgeboom,.Milt
Carlson, Bob Sanders; Walter Bahr, Bob Lopp, and
Therese Hash. Mike DeGrosky and Michael Fraser were
absent (excused). The Flathead Regional Development
Office was represented by Steve Herbaly, Planning
Director and John Parsons, Senior Planner. Brian Wood,
Zoning Administrator represented the City of Kalispell.
.There were approximately 60 people in attendance.
APPROVAL OF The minutes of the February 14, 1995 meeting were
MINUTES approved as submitted on a motion by .Lopp, second by
Bahr. All members present voted aye.
Parsons read for the benefit of the audience a
memorandum handed out to the Board members from himself
regarding the.Buf.falo Commons PUD, requesting that the
� public hearing on this case be continued until the
lam! April 11, 1995 meeting to allow the City Attorney an
opportunity to conclude his review of the terms and
conditions proposed to protect and maintain the
integrity of the plan, as,per Section 27.21.020(2)(e)
of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning
Commission is required to, but cannot, make this
finding, therefore this precludes the Commission from
making a recommendation on the requested PUD.
Hash asked ..Parsons if this were just one .finding?
Parsons responded that yes, it was, but it is a
required finding. Hash noted that.since there were a
number of people in attendance for this matter, could
the public hearing be held, take public comment and
leave the matter open? Parsons said that the public
hearing could be opened for taking public comment,
however, in the past, the Board has been concerned
about time lapses between taking public comment and
taking action.
Discussion The Board was asked their feelings on this matter.
Kennedy felt that it was unfortunate that the city
attorney has not done a complete review on this, and
,with the number of people in attendance, she favored
holding a public hearing, then continuing it to the
next meeting, if this is a requirement which must be
met. Hodgeboom favored taking public comment, keeping
the public hearing open so that additional comment can
be taken at the April meeting. Lopp agreed that due to
the complexity of this proposal, there is a fair
1
probability that we not only continue the public
hearing, but hold preliminary discussion this evening,
since it is a very large project. He would not be
comfortable rubber stamping either the proposal or the
recommendation from FRDO. The general consensus was to
continue with the public hearings as listed on the
agenda.
GATEWAY The first public hearing was on a request by GESN,
ORCHARD Inc.,'for preliminary plat approval to resubdivide 31
VILLAS townhouse lots on 7 parent lots into 24 townhouse lots
PRELIMINARY on the 7 parent lots., The .sites are located in Gateway
PLAT Orchard Villas Subdivision on Sunburst Court, Lambert
Court and Jubilee Court on .the west .side of Glenwood
Drive north of Two Mile Drive. The parent lots are
described as Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, 15. of .Gateway
Orchard Villas in the SE4 of the NE4 of Section 12,
T28N, R22W, P.M.M., Flathead County.
Staff Report Parsons presented.FRDO Subdivision Report #KPP-95-02.
Staff reviewed the request and based on the _evaluation
of the necessary criteria, recommended that the amended
preliminary plat of Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, and 15 of
Gateway Orchard Villas for townhouse development be
approved.
Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the
request.
In Favor Doug Kaufman, Thomas, Dean & Hoskins, representative.
for the developer, expl.ained that this is an extension
of the previous subdivision, and because of the
favorable market reaction to that subdivision, the
'developer decided to realign the lot lines as proposed.
There were no .other speakers .either in favor or in
opposition to the proposal. The public hearing was
closed, and it.was .opened to Board discussion.
Motion Kennedy moved to adopt report #KPP-95-02 as findings of
fact, and recommend approval of the amended plat for
Lots 51 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, and 15 of Gateway Orchard
Villas. Carls.on.seconded. On a .roll ,call vote
Carlson, Kennedy, Bahr, Hodgeboom, Sanders, Lopp, and
Hash voted unanimously -in favor.
Therese Hash declared a conflict of interest on the
next two agenda items and stepped.down from the Board.
Vice -chair Pam Kennedy presided.
BIRK Kennedy introduced the request by Tim Birk for
ANNEXATION & annexation and an initial zone of R-4 Two Family
G ZONE CHANGE / Residential) upon annexation into the City of
R-1 TO R-4 Kalispell. The property is presently zoned County R-1
(Suburban Residential). The site is approximately 12
acres located west of Kalispell on the east side of
2
Hathaway Lane, southwest of Greenbriar Subdivision, and
is more particularly described as Assessors Tracts 6A,
6D, 6E, and 6CB in the SW4 of Section 12, T28N, R22W,
P.M:M., Flathead County.
Staff Report Parsons announced that since the writing of the staff
report, new information has come to light, that a
recommendation for denial of zoning cannot be based on
a development proposal. The recommendation of denial
for this zone in this particular location was based on
a subdivision proposal, which is scheduled for the next
public hearing. That is not a decision that I would
have a tendency to agree with, but it is adjudicated to
that end. As a result, I am amending my staff report.
Parsons presented report-#KA-95-2, as amended, which
recommended approval of the requested city zone, and
denial of annexation.
On page 2, under the first criterion, in the 2nd
paragraph, delete the last two sentences, and the
remainder of that section.
On page 4, under Will the Requested Zone Avoid Undue
Concentration of People? The 3rd sentence, add a
phrase as follows: Infra -structure exists or can be
provided, at the City's discretion unless annexed which
supports the proposed zone. Under the next criterion,
at the end of the 1st sentence, add if the property is
annexed.
Delete the discussion on page 5, and the recommendation
reads: It is recommended that the Kalispell City -
County Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt this
staff report as findings of fact and forward a
favorable recommendation to City Council for the
requested zone, if annexed. The last sentence would be
deleted.
Questions Lopp clarified for the audience that the Board deals
with the zoning as one item and deals with the
subdivision request as a second item. Secondly, he
asked John when was this issue adjudicated? And when
was it brought to our attention? Parsons responded
that he was not familiar with the specific cases. He
found out about it this afternoon, that initially Bill
Astle brought it to his attention. He conferred with
Steve Herbaly concerning the issue, and that is when I
decided to change the staff report. I have not had a
chance to research the cases involved, so I do not know
if the specifics of the case are the same. Lopp
pointed out that it is tough on the public to react to
a reversal like this without having a copy of the text,
and agreed it was tough for staff, as well.
Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the
zone request, only.
3
In Favor Bret Birk, Kalispell, said that he feels the zone
change reque' st is justified, because it borders land
that has a similar zone.
Tim Birk, .contract,purchaser for the property, said the
property belongs to the Daniels. He is in favor of the
proposed annexation and zoning of the property as
requested for the following reasons: (1) the property
is a logical 'extension of the city of Kalispell; (2) it
is generally consistent with the city and county master
plan for the area; (3).the property is close to city
services and commercial facilities; (4) this proposal
wi 11.:.pr.ovi-de ::moderate .income.. housing in ..the.. Ka.1 ispel 1
area. The major concern that was raised in the review
is as follows: (1) there is no .reservation of easement
for 'the proposed Hwy 93 bypass through the .proposed
subdivision..: I -feel that the zoning .and .annexation
application should not be approved or denied, because
of specific details. in the .subdivision .proposal, it
should be based on the county master plan for the area.
(2) Access to the property needs to be expanded and the
northern portion may not be available as an access, and
.suggests a -second access to the property. My.response
to that, is that I feel that these types of issues
shou.ld.be named as._conditions to compliance and.filed
with final plat of the subdivision, if these conditions
n are found to be in the best interests of the public.
The proposed zoning that I am asking for is
approximately 20% of what the maximum density in the
area can be. I feel that it would be a good buffer
area between RA-1 that we have on one side of the
property, and' the suburban tracts on the other side.
I feel that the FRDO staff is generally in _favor of the
proposed subdivision.
No one else spoke in favor of the zone request. The
public hearing was Opened to those in..opposi.tion.
Opposition. Dan Johns, 431 1st Ave West, Kalispell, an attorney
with Murphy,..,Rob.i.nso.n,. Heckathorn .and. P.hi.l..lips, is here
on behalf of Larry and Valerie Parsons, who own the
property that. adjoins .thi.s ..propos.al to .the west across
Hathaway Lane and borders the entire western boundary.
The Parsons own approximately 10 acres, and have a nice
single family home on it. It is zoned R-1, which is
the same as the property under consideration. The
Parsons are out of state, but requested that Mr. Johns
read a letter into .therecord, which mixes the zoning
in with the subdivision proposal,. however it is
impossible to separate the two. [He handed out a
letter written by Mr. Larry Parsons to board members
and a'copy.is attached as a part of the minutes.] He
p
that the 'application requests an R-4 zone
ointedout
and 50 duplex lots. When you. look at the Environmental
Assessment of the impacts, whether is it sewage flow,
water requirements, traffic flow, .everything is set for
2
50 single family residential lots. The zoning permits
duplexes, 'so you need to double those impacts. The
.issue on traffic is a real grave concern. If you put
al.l. that ..tra.f.fic _in this subdivision, right now the
only exit is through Hathaway Lane, which is a county
.r.oad about -halfway up .thr.ough the..subdivision. It is
not a public road at the north entrance, and Mr. Birk
made reference to that. It is private. It has never
been accepted by the county as a county road, so there
is going to need to be a significant change in the
design of the subdivision. To the west you have
Greenbriar subdivision, which is R-4. To the east is
the Pack property that is RA-1. To the south, most of
that property is owned by .the Crowe .family and that is
R-1, to the north is R-1, to the west the Parsons'
property is also R-1. What we submit that they are
trying to do is put a round peg in a square hole. It
is a nice piece of ground, but 100 residential units
don't fit on that ground. You can't get in and out
effectively. We submit the request be denied, that the
zoning be appropriate to the area. I have also been
advised that.there may .have..b.een some contact_ made and
some word spread concerning that if there is a denial
of .this application, it may constitute a "taking". I
strongly disagree with such a statement. If the
government is. taking. somebody's property or their
economic interest in the property, basically what they
would be doing is -- let's say they are taking .your RA-
1 and cutting you back to an R-1, then it is possible
that it is a taking. But, 'this developer is asking for
a zone for an economic benefit. By retaining the
..zoning .that is . there, now, You are not taking.- anything
away from him. I am surprised at the staff's change in
recommendation. .I..have learned tonight that .anytime I
have a proposal, if I can call them in the afternoon
and cite some authority, they will change their
recommendation without calling .their .attorneys. I
would expect the staff to make contact with their
counsel and find out if the case is cited, and find
that is .what the principles they've enuciated stand for
and that it applies in this case. We request that you
.stay with .the R-1.
Brett Katsiff, 577 Two Mile Drive, stated he is in
opposition to the zoning change to R-4, and agrees 100 0
with the statements previously presented.
Tiffany .Katsiff, 5.77 Two Mile Drive, and she agrees
with the previous speakers, and is opposed to the zone
change.
-� Stanley Gross, 40 Hathaway Lane, owns the property just
). south of .Lar.ry _Parsons, and very close to the area
under quest -ion, and he agrees wholeheartedly with what
.Mr. .Johns .said. . [He-.submitt-ed a letter. -of. his concerns
which are attached as a part of the minutes.].
61
(�
Sheryl Hester, 100
proposed subdivision,
Hathaway
and she is
Lane, adjoining
in opposition to
the
the
requested zone change.
Eleanor Hedstrom, 75 Hartt Hill Drive, agrees with Mr.
Jo.hnsan.d*is opposed to the zone change.
Russ Marks, 30 Hathaway Lane, which is south of this
proposal, said. he and his wife are whole-heartedly
opposed to the zone change. This the reason that they
jus.t.had his .father subdivide his property so that .they
could have an 1 1/4 acre tract to put their new home
there.
Donald Crowe, 1471 Hwy 2 West, lives on the south
-border of this... development., and he ..objects to the
rezoning. It is crowded enough as it is. Highway 2 is
almost impossible.
Kim Ross, 1468 Hwy 2 West, is opposed to the zone
change.
Pat Wells, .1479 Hwy 2 West, and she whole-heartedly
supports Mr. .Johns' and_Mr. [Larry] Parsons' comments.
She is opposed to the zone change._
(� Bob Cole, .1:47.0 Hwy 2. West,. said .that he was part of the
zoning process in the '80's when they tried to address
uncontrolled growth.a.round the valley. We .came .to the
Planning Commission and asked to be zoned, and we
...cooperated ,with the zoning, and .now it. ..s.eems that
people want to changethe zone. We are very opposed to
that. We..en.tered..into" a contract with you folks [the
governing bodies], and we expect that contract to be
honored.
Bill Wells, 1479 Hwy 2 West, he is opposed to the zone
change.
Gary Crowe, attorney in Kalispell, whose business is
located at.,.. 3.0 5th Street.East. He repr.es.ents a number
of the residents who are affected by this proposed zone
change, -s.pecifica]:ly my parents, Don and Patricia
Crowe, 1,471 Hwy 2 West. There were many very good
points that were. brought .fort.h. by the written statement
from Mr. Larry Parsons, but perhaps two of the most
important that .I believe this Commission shou'ld_fo.cus
on are the aspects of keeping the continuity of the
area.. Mr.. Johns..hit. on this in. closing, and Mr.. Birk
who is one of two people who spoke in favor of it,
basically hit upon it in .the mainstream of his
argument Digressing, I believe there must be some
1 kind of relationship between the two Birks who spoke in
favor of�� this..._ ,The paint that I would like to brang
forth 'is'that we have :three-quarters of the affected
area's perimeter that is zoned R-1. On the north side,
C:i
O the Phillips` property and the Hester property. On the
west, the Parsons property and on'the south, an
approximate 10-acre parcel owned by Don and Patricia
Crowe:.. -The eastern ..side..is.-divided by a couple of
" owners, one of them is Ron. Pack. As you know all so
well, he, because of, neighborhood opposition, withdrew
his proposal at this time. There is a reason why he
withdrew .his proposal, and there cannot be a better
corollary or a better situation for comparison than a
.round peg in a square hole. Abso.l.utely,.the argument
that is offered by Mr. Birk in primary support of his
contention is that he wanted to _establish a buffer
zone. Actually, it would be exactly the converse of
that argument.
More importantly, we are talking about a situation,
where I am absolutely shocked. Dan Johns stated it
perfectly. It shocks my conscience that this gentleman
can get a phone call .from Bill Ast1e this afternoon and
threaten adjudication, and you have a complete change
in the. recommendation :and opinion. Are we going to
make decisions because of intimidation from attorneys?
If you want some intimidation ..from -attorneys, then
'that's what we can do for a living, but that is not the
way I was taught to practice .law. I was taught to
practice law by applying the law to the facts. Not
O .intimidation tactics. That is what the wild west was
all about. That is not what the Kalispell planning
commission is all about. ..If Bill Astle can make a call
at 4c00, so can Dan Johns, so can Gary Crowe, so can
Dennis Hester. But, quite frankly, we have more
respect for this condition than to resort to those
tactics.. I. trust ..that you _folks, .as honorable people
of this 'commission, are not going to be put in the
position of intimidation to make a decision as this
gentleman was. Certainly, at minimum, you must ask for
an opinion from your. city .attorney, Glen Neier.
Absolutely, this is beyond argument. This shocks me
more than the proposal itself.
In addition, we have a $212,000 investment in our
highway bypass. It is going to go right through this
area. We are talking about an alleged threat of
adjudication and Mr. Johns articulated, as well, the
threat of a loss of property rights through this
zoning. Well, if we are going to .talk about a loss of
property rights, are we going to talk about the 60
people who are in this room against this project? Are
we going to talk_ about Mr. Daniels .over here? In these
decisions, you must weigh the competing interests of
the various' and respective property owners. You have
a situation herewhere clearly three quarters of the
surrounding subject property is R-1 and everything has
been fine as R-1. Nobody has come before and asked for
a zone change,'un*til Mr. Daniels and Mr. Birk decided
they were going 'to maximize their personal profits.
7
This is based on motivation by financial gain.
Financial .gain at .the detriment to these 60 landowners.
How about these 60 persons' rights so that these people
can line their pockets and walk? I would .ask you to
consider that 75% of the perimeter of adjacent
landowners are R-1 and are comfortable with that
classification and are asking you to keep not only
their property'R-1, but the rest of it R-1. Obviously,
as a requirement for this zoning, it is going to be
annexed. You know as well as I do, how the city of
Kalispell likes to annex property, and how Hathaway
Lane runs in a.north-south boundary. This is going to
affect many people who don't want to be annexed into
the city. It is not going to be cleverly .carved out as
Mort Daniel's property, so if we are going to talk
about respectiveproperty owners' rights how about
those who do not want to be annexed. How about all of
your hard work., all . of thiscity's....hard work in the
1993'bypass program for $212,000?
Basical ly, R-l..is fine. T.en residences.. are acceptable.
You have got to look at the other impacts. Have you
gone to the intersection of, Hathaway..Lame and. Hwy 93?
Are you aware of Hartt Hill? Are you aware of the
truck ..traffic? Are you aware of the automobile
accidents?' In the DIL three days ago, there was a big
O rollover .on Hartt Hill. There were no other vehicles
involved. What about 100 other families? What is
going to be done about ..that approach and that
intersection? Is there going to be a light? Who will
pay for that? Who is going to pay for the .increased 90
feet of' approach? Furthermore, who is going to foot
the bill for the goods and services that are going to
be required in the surrounding area that this area is
going to affect. Mr. Birk has not designated any park
whatsoever within this area. He says he going to use
a very small portion in another area that he was
involved with. It is beyond question. I just can't
see where this makes any sense whatsoever. You. have
two people speaking in favor of it, both their names
are Birk, and quite frankly, if you are looking for an
opinion, get an opinion from your city attorney. Let's
not. get..an opinion from a telephone call from Bill
Astle at 4 p.m. and completely change your
recommendation.
David Phillips, 824 8th Street West, and like Mr.
Crowe, said I ..am representing my .parents, Louis and
Carol Phillips, who live at 672 Two Mile Drive. Not
wanting to belabor a point, but I think it is
interesting that very often, the city, in annexation
cases, ends up .annexing something that -.is already
existing, iahethei it be" a mobile home next to a nice
house, or whatever. You have' •an opportunity to create
a z'ohiii before 'the"anine'xatior ; so that if V the area .is_..
R-1, you don't have to necessarily put"100 units next
1.1
to it. I got a kick out of Mr. Birk's reference to a
buffer zone.. That .reminds me of being in a restaurant
where there is smoking and non-smoking. This fellow is
smoking.a cigar and he is. sitting at a t.ab.1e. marked
smoking. The other fellow is at a non-smoking table,
but they are about a foot .apart. .That is exac.t.ly .what
we will have out on Two Mile Drive My dad's property
is .in the greenbelt, and it has one house on
approximately 6 acres. We are right now next to
Greenbriar. On .the.south.._s.ide would .be..Greenhaven.
Our concern, without 'a park, is our five acres going to
become his park? Mr..Birk.verbally promised my dad a
four foot chain link fence along the west side of his
property to keep that .from happening with his previous
development.. We have yet to see it, and we realize now
that perhaps a verbal. agreement wasn't enough to solve
that problem. That's what we have when we bring a
buffer zone at that high a density.. If you look at the
development now at the way it runs, we already have a
buffer from the townhouses and apartments, down to what
he has at Greenbriar down to the greenbelt right next
door. If you use that. excuse, you will just keep
stepping stone Two Mile Drive out Hwy 2 West. You can
always use that excuse -- that you need a buffer zone.
He can say I have 100 duplexes, I need a buffer zone.
That is not a legitimate argument.
O Walt' Faustance, and his wife Stacie, live on Hwy 35,
and are here at the request of Larry Parsons, to say we
are opposed to the zoning change.
Brandon Owens, 1930.Hwy 2 West, said he just bought .his
"propert'y ' l ast year and part of the reason he moved out
there was because .of the. zoning and he is opposed to
.the "zone" .change.
Mark Noland, 8 Hathaway Lane, is opposed to the zone
change.
Dennis Hester, 100 Hathaway Lane, which is adjacent to
this proposed .s.ubdi.vi.sion. He read a portion of a
statement he had prepared which dealt with both the
zoning and.the.subdivision, but he would like to have
this statement to be introduced and applied to both the
zoning. hearing and the.subdivision hearing. He started
out by saying that he is personally troubled, as others
.are,that staff woul.d change its. recommendation on the
opinion of the developer's counsel, Bill Astle, whom I
have worked with for many years, and whom I indeed
respect, but with whom on occasion disagree with. I am
..concerned that ..they would change their recommendation
so late in the''game based on an opinion given today,
apparently wit.hout..adequat.e research on the part of
staff to verify these adjudications that have
apparently taken place. [Mr. Hester read from his four
pages of written' 'testimony and submitted same which is
attached hereto as part of the minutes] He 'made
E
additional. comments regarding the zone change as
f611ows'. "'I' am 'eitremely concerned about the density
the developer desires, which is directly related to the
zoning he is requesting. On behalf of my neighbors., I
would like to present to this Board by presenting to
the clerk, over 50 zoning protests indicating
o'ppositiori "to ' this zone from people in our
neighborhood. [attached as part of the minutes].
Dave Stark, 787 Two Mile Drive, agrees with what Dennis
said and is opposed to this zoning change.
Isabelle Larson, said she and her husband Don have
lived at 782 Two Mile Drive, since 1969, and they are
opposed 'to this. I am a retired teacher. The
statutory requirements for zone changes state that
school impacts be adequately addressed, and she wished
to focus .on this issue. Excluding opinions, I will be
glad to give names of authorities who have verified my
research so .as to. make thi.s asadequate as possible.
The neighborhood schools for this general area are
Peterson. and Russell. According to the county
superintendent they are comfortably full. There are no
immediate plans for new school.s in this area.
Extensive multiple units in various stages of
.construction, are being . sold or . rented, -north .of Two
Mile Drive, east and west of Meridian. Although I have
not. researched th.ese,,anyone.driving by can def.initely'
see that it will increase the Russell School
population. Currently, under .co.nstructio.n south of Two
Mile Drive and west of Meridian are 34 units, at the
Two Mile Drive. :apartments., and 54 .lots f-or single
family dwellings or duplexes at Greenbriar. Greenhaven
has'a proposed 50 lots for. single..fami1y or duplexes,
which would mean 100 families. She used the lowest
figure in FRDO report as an ..estimate for' school
"'children.; -a- conservative figure of 150 additional
.,students for Pe.terson..and_Rus.sell schools. _If in fact,
these projects are affordable housing for young
families, then the number of students could easily
double or triple. These young students at Greenbriar
or Greenhaven will be required to get to school either
by -bicycle or walking. Those going to Peterson must
cross dangerous Hwy 2 and dangerous Meridian to get to
school .' 'Those going 'to Riussel l must get onto Two Mile
Drive which is a nightmare, across Meridian, and
'Wyoming. with. no sidewalks.. She can think of no more
dangerous. routes for. young .chi.ldren,. If Russel 1.and
Peterson schools are full, the children will be bussed
to other schools. ' Our two children, now grown,
received 'an outstanding. education in the Kalispell
_ .. .. .�_ , .. t schools provide
r. .
on1 par t of a chi l d s edurata.on � f we ar e — to keep
schools.But, we also believe .,that
our 11-1 children safe from drugs and violence, agreat big
poblem for schools -- then -we ,.must give them.an
environment' to pursue activities after school.
10
. form for kids at school n the
'friends �) Friendships
different neighborhoods, t get
frien s ipends live is fthey can
together, because there is no way to do that. We
welcomed kids in'the-neighborhood while our kids were
growing up, because we had the space. At one time, we
,were engrossed in .designing, building and launching
rockets, and one of those boys that did the project is
one of the.top.r.ock.et scientists in this country. We
had basketball hoops and band sessions. During the high
school years, the boys came .over: and .spent . several
months in our garage putting together a vehicle. Young
people'who can spend time doing things that interest
"them find less reason to escape frustration and boredom
by Wi ing drugs and. committing crimes, and they also
1 earn'. I ifel on.g . ski 11 s . The nature of high density
housing, and 'if you read the covenants for this
roject, it does not "_..
..p provide the space and the freedom
for projects. If planning is to be meaningful, it must
not be about lines on maps. It must be'about quality
of life for people and especially for the children.
Steve Nole, 836 Two Mile Drive, is opposed to the
zoning change.
Robert Lehman, 1930 Hwy 2 West, said that we went
through the same hassle two years ago on the other side
01 of the road, along Ashley Creek. I live on the Ashley
Creek side. I agree :with .what some of the attorneys
have said here, and my wife and I are definitely
opposed to the rezoning. There is one item I have not
heard brought up and that is the fact that this area is
in a.f.loodplain area. If you look at where the water
from this area drains, `it al`1 ends up` in Asr�ley Creek.
Our water_rights date back :to .1894, and they don't-rhean
much -anymore, because of the pesticides and fertilizers
that wash down -into that creek since we've been on our
property, and has caused an oxygen block on the lower
side of 'Ashley:Creek. I think we should look. at .the
environmental impact on the water, and the total
environment for the area.
Greg Goode, 1639 Hwy 2 West, and my opposition to this
proposal .is. that this parcel was studied and earmarked
by the study to be the prime location for a future
truck bypass, that. .has been _needed for 20 years or
more. Now, someone is proposing to build a high
density subdivision in the path of this future roadway.
Why are we ignoring the bypass study that we spent so
much money on?. ..It makes no...economic sense to .approve
a more concentrated housing development in an area that
has the potential and need that is so very apparent by
the truck traffic in town on any given day. As most
politicians do, they pass the buck. The city will..say
"it is the county's problem, the county will say it is
a state probl-em, the state will come in with the
statement that it is the federal government's problem.
11
In this case, the buck should stop before it starts.
This is our .problem, the taxpayers. When the city,
county or state governments speaks of federal road
money, .it is made to sound as if the dollars come from
some foreign country or outer space. This money does
not come from outer space. It comes from every member
of the council, you and me, the taxpayer, sitting here
tonight. We should be doing long term planning by
defeating the zoning change and insisting that it be
kept as it is presently zoned. If we have vacant land
and possibly two homes to buy, as opposed to ten plus
duplexes, and streets to revamp, we are comparing
millions of dollars to thousands saved by not allowing
the zoning classification to be changed. This affects
each and every taxpayer in the city of Kalispell,
county of Flathead, state of Montana. It affects all
of us in the pocketbook.
Ed Marks, said he owns 3 3/4 acres of property on
Hathaway Lane. He bought this property 20 years ago
with the intention of building a home there and putting
"up a truck shop. In 1988 while he was in the hospital,
the Planning Board zoned this to R-1 so that he
couldn't move his shop there. Last year I wanted to
give my son a 1 1/4 acre of land there. It took me six
months to get the approvals from the Planning Board and
health department to let me do that. I resent the fact
that one phone call can make this gentleman change his
mind. 'I spent thousands of dollars trying to change
their minds and 6 months of my time. I agree, also,
with everything said here against this zone change.
Karen Nielson, 1608 Rainbow Lane, Washington.. I am
sorry -that I. arrived ..late. I want it on the record
that I am not a relative of Mr. Birk's. I live in
Seattle and am representing Anna C. Howe who lives at
1202. Two Mile Drive, and my grandmother has owned her
property .there for nearly 60 years. There was nothing
but farmland there when it was changed to R-1. That
meant that everyone could move in around here. She
loved and cherished all'of her neighbors as they grew
up. I am in favor of Mr. Birk's development. I feel
that her property would be more advantageously
developed, and I could get more money for it to
represent her and care for her in her old age. She
paid her taxes, she sent four children to.school at
Flathead High School, she took care of everything
around her,.and all of her neighbors. I feel that now
in her old age, she should receive the most amount of
money for her property, and development is the way to
get that. If Mr. Birk gets the zone change, it will
help have all .that land annexed into Kalispell.
Whether it is developed into high density or whether it
is just.subdivided into small lots so that they would
be single family dwellings, it will still allow her to
.make money off of..her property which she paid for,
12
loved and cherished for many, many years. [For the
record, Ms. Neilsen was in favor.]
Jeanne Linrud, 680 Two Mile Drive, my husband and I are
opposed to the zone change.
There being no other speakers either in favor or in
opposition to the requested zone change, the public
hearing was closed and the meeting opened to Board
deliberation.
Discussion Vice -Chair Kennedy said that she would like to stand
behind Mr. Parsons and his de.cision in changing his
recommendation. I do not believe he changed due to
intimidation by .one phone call from Mr. Astle at the
last hour of the last day. I believed after reading
his report, that we needed to address the issue of the
zone change separately from the proposal, itself. The
report we received was one in which Mr. Parsons was
''looking' at both of them together,' because they were
submitted together. It is my understanding. that we
need to'address zoning separately from and not address
the subdivision review that was going on at the same
time. That was also his direction from his
administrator, the director of the department.
Fred Hodgeboom believes that we do have future housing
needs in Kalispell and surrounding area, but has
concerns about the location of this particular
proposal. We need in -fill development rather than
stepping out into single family districts. I'm
thinking that the Highway 93 bypass would be the
logical division between the densities. I question
whether we really need to step out west of the bypass
with this density at this time.
Bob Lopp wanted to elaborate on some of the
presentations,'in that the R-1 zone was developed in
response to our process of encouraging. zoning and
development of the master plan. The neighborhood,
realizing that this was the time, got together as a
neighborhood and selected what they felt was
appropriate for their area -- an R-1. We have heard of
a number of people who have subsequently bought within
this area based .on the. knowledge that it was zoned R-1.
I find it difficult to go back now and right in the
middle of them and change it to a significantly higher
density. We have heard the owners that surround this
property, saying they are opposed to it. Anytime you
make a change like this you affect not only the
financial view and opportunity for the owner of the
property being annexed, but you also affect the
pro perty'that surrounds it. There is already, in the
"R-1, the economic return on the property as' it is
currently zoned. If' we' go ahead and change this, we
also affect. .lay 'taking`- away from the neighboring
13
properttes unless they were to zone at the higher
density. They have indicated they are not interested
in that. They are there because they like that zone.
Fred has a good point, in looking at the bypass as a
logical transition line. At the time the master plan
was developed, we did not have a location for the
bypass. Therefore, we can't look at the current master
plan where we would .:like to see high density, which has
variations within it. We may be at a point to amend
.the master plan recognizing that we now have a traffic
plan and making it a logical dividing line. It is time
to reinforce that. The people made their choice, they
supported planning, selected their zoning, which we
approved. I am disappointed with the timing of what
has happened"with this. I think it is difficult for
both the .proposer and those who have seen the staff
report and then come to find it very different. I know
i.t is difficult for you too, John, but too many points
have been made this evening and in. looking at the
character of the area, for me to support this zone
change..
Milt Carlson wanted to approach this from a different
angle.` After spending two years putting together the
County Master Plan, it occurs to me that the
neighborhood .designation is the way to go. The
neighborhoods designate .the way they wish their zoning
to be and 'work together so that everyone in the
neighborhood can at least be protected and semi -happy.
Nobody is happy with the final results, but at least
there is equal unhappiness, that is the way that
compromises work out. We see many. instances of single
properties that jut out of the city that do not have
re-lationship. to what.has.already been established and
what could be going on in the future. I would
recommend,. -not only .for ..this part of the city, but for
other sections in the city, to come up with a
neighborhood plan to be incorporated within the master
plan. It would seem quite right to preserve and
continue to preserve the type of zoning the residents,
as a whole, in that area want.
Kennedy said that the zoning you are both alluding to
is county zoning, but what we are looking at here is
city zoning. What I hear you saying is that the city
zoning should be comparable and reflect the county
zoning...L.opp and Carlson agreed.
Walter Bahr appreciated that the neighbors have spoken
loudly that they do not want a higher density to be
approved in this area. I certainly respect that desire
upon hearing it.from that many people.
John Parsons read for the benefit of the audience, from
the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance which deals with
protests to zone changes in section 27.30.030. It
14
deals with hearings at the city council level. "In the
case, however of protest signed against such changes
signed by the owners of 200 or more of either the area
of the lots included in such proposed change or of
those lots immediately adjacent on either side thereof
within the block or of .those directly opposite thereof
extending 150 feet from the street frontage of such
opposite lots, such amendments shall not become
effective except by the favorable vote of three -fourths
of all members of city council." What this says is
that if you are serious about opposing, put it in
writing. Indicate which property you own, so staff can
tell city council where you live, where the opposition
is, and whether or not that 20% is opposed, which in
this case there obviously is.
Lopp felt more comfortable with the staff report as
mailed to members. We have not seen the information
that Mr..Astle .has presented to staff, or an opinion
from Mr. Neier. Also, taking into consideration the
testimony tonight from legal .counsel taking the view of
the original recommendation and findings of fact, may
be just as valid as Mr. Astle. We also have the letter
from the Montana Department of Transportation
encouraging us to..seriously.consider .the impact of
subdivisions, and in this case, a zone change, upon the
bypass proposal. The concepts they refer to are
applicable. What is pointed out is that increased
development.in a.corridor proposed would be a foolish
impact on the traffic plan which is also part of the
master plan. I don't happen to care for the location
that has been selected for the bypass, however, it is
part of the master plan, and has as much impact, has as
much validity -in our discussion as the fact that this
area could also fall within high density.
Kennedy asked if he wanted the letter from MDOT read
into the record?
He said no, but the concepts are there. We need to
Look at the demands from both sides. We have a master
plan that says this area could be high density. The
master plan does not require that every development
within' it meet the highest usage.. Just because the
master plan says it could be high ..density, does not
mean it has to be high density. Secondly, we have
within our own master plan a designated corridor for a
bypass. As a Board we have to look at and weigh those
as .competing requirements within our own document, our
own master plan. We had good counsel this evening
looking at that same document and saying that we have
to recognize, should recognize the potential impact of
the bypass upon 'this piece of property. We have had
solid comments from the neighbors that are right on the
border stating `that they would like to stay exactly as
15
they are. We have plenty of evidence to stay with Mr.
Parsons' original report.
Kennedy recognized Mr. Herbaly, Planning Director of
FRDO,.in.the audience to address his comments to the
Board. For the Board's information, he stated that
John asked him a generic question that afternoon about
subdivisionreviewand zoning and annexation requests.
I did not have any. knowledge that any attorneyhad
contacted him or spoke to influence the decision. I
told him no, . the .evaluation of a..zone change request is
generic as if there is no subdivision proposal on the
table. Make therecommendation in relation to the
master plan, keeping in mind _Lowe vs. Missoula, when
the court articulated those points of decision in
relationship to a zone request. If the subdivision had
a fatal flaw -that is independent of whether or not the
zoning requested is in compliance with the master plan,
and so my comments to John were not affected by anyone
threatening to sue or to bring pressure on us to change
_.the decision.
Motion Lopp moved to adopt FRDO report #KA-95-2 as originally
presented; as findings of fact and forward a
recommendation for denial as presented. Bahr seconded.
On a roll call vote Hodgeboom, Bahr, Sanders, Lopp, and
Carlson voted aye. Kennedy voted nay. The motion to
denythe- zone change request from (County) R-1 to
(City) R-4 was passed on a 5-1 vote.
GREENHAVEN Next, Kennedy introduced a request by Tim Birk for
SUBDIVISION preliminary plat approval of a 50 lot single
PRELIMINARY family/duplex subdivision of approximately 12.5 acres,
PLAT to be known as Greenhaven Subdivision. The property
.has been requested to be .annexed with an initial .zone
of R-4 (Two Family Residential). The site is generally
located at .the . north. end of and on the east side of
Hathaway Lane, soutwest of the Greenbriar Subdivision.
The site.is further described as Assessor's Tracts 6A,
6D, 6E, and 6CB in the SW4 of Section 12, T28N, R22W,
P.M.M.,.Flathead County.
Staff Report Parsons gave a detailed presentation of subdivision
report #KPP-95-03. The request was evaluated in
accordance with the subdivision' regulations and
statutory criteria for review of a subdivision. Based
on the findings, staff recommended that preliminary
plat for. Greenhaven Subdivision be denied.
A letter received on 3/13/95 from the Montana
Department of.Transportation was read.into the record
and is attached hereto as part of the minutes.
Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to :those in favor of the
`i proposed subdivision.
16
In Favor Bret Birk, one of the developers, wanted to say that
the master plan specifies things that neighborhood
plans don't and that is to recognize that there is
growth in the Flathead. It is inevitable. That is why
'this area was decided to be suitable for up to 40 units
per acre. We are suggesting 8 units per acre, which is
well within that recommendation. Also, we suggest that
'development. -.should be encouraged where municipal sewer
and water facilities are available to prevent
contamination of the groundwater and the degradation of
the environment. As far as the runoff water, that will
be contained on the property as required by state law.
Tim Birk, said my brother and I �
a subdivision that will meet a]
the governing bodies. The rea:
the .infrastructure required
development of this type is ver
reasonable -amount of density the
to finance it. Also, although
per er se, we don't have any exac
that right now. Even by this
tell .us within 120 feet of.whe
So'we are looking at either 300
utilized or. 45% that. -takes off a
a - 45 degree angle, landlocki
property. operty. The secondary access]
Ronnie Pack whose land borders
granted from the Greenbriar Sul
entertain a roadway' through th
But, it might be a moot point ir
ould certainly propose
1 the requirements of
on for the density is
for annexation and
expensive and with a
-e is no economical way
qe have a bypass plan,
t way of dealing with
morning they couldn't
:e it is going to be.
of this site not being
cross that property at
ig a portion of the
.as been discussed with
the 30 foot easement
division and we would
it section of ground.
this case, because we
still don't know about this access. This access, as
all you people who have been around here for so many
years know, that they have talked about this specific
west side access since the early '50's. It looks like
it might be 'coming to a head, within a year, maybe.
The situation we have in this valley, is we are trying
to prevent a few of these 5-acre parcels from being
developedoutin the county, that have the potential
for degradation of the groundwater and open space and
that type of -thing. Well, tonight is a good example of
what happens when you try to approve that density.
None of these lots are small in comparison to the
existing township lots. I just don't know where to go.
We relied on the master plan, we are expecting to fully
improve thes I e properties I . t, 0 city - standards.
There being no further proponents, the public hearing
was opened to those opposed to the subdivision request.
Opposition Dennis Hester, 100 Hathaway Lane, wanted to make two
points
oints which were not in 'his� pre . par I ed statement. (1)
I I do '_ -agree with Mr. Herbaly and the Chair on the
analysis alys'-is _' of-" the zoning issue and - the subdivision
proposal should 'be' considered, at all times,
separately:
ately".- They -should be analyied separately as they
17
should be analyzed based on different criteria. As I
stated in the zoning portion, zoning is 1. required to be
in compliance with the master plan. Subdivisions are
not required to comply with the master plan. I would
like to raise a few specific points regarding this
subdivision proposal. First, I would like to address
the omissions and errors in the environmental
assessment submitted by the developer. [He read from
his prepared statement, which is attached hereto as
part of the minutes.] On behalf of his neighbors, he
submitted letters of opposition to the subdivision and
annexation, which contain individual comments from over
40 of his neighbors. [These comments are included and
attached hereto as part of the minutes. (39 letters
representing 42 property owners.)] He suggested
additional findings of fact beyond those suggested by
FRDO because, I believe that a recommendation for
denial based solely on noncompliance of the master plan
'is not sufficient. The additional eight (8)
recommendations I would suggest are [as stated in the
testimony attached.]
Mark Noland, 8 Hathaway Lane, testified that he has a
home and business located at the intersection of Hwy 2
West and Hathaway Lane....He read his testimony in
opposition to the proposed subdivision, a copy of which
is attached as part of the minutes.
David Phillips, 824 8th Street West, representing Louis
and. "Carol A. Phillips, who'live at 672 Two Mile Drive,
adjacent to the proposed subdivision. One of things I
"`find amazing, the many times I've been in front of the
County Planning Board; is that I've seen many proposed
subdivisions with certainly a better approach than
this.- 'We may expand a secondary easement, which Mr.
Parsons pointed out was needed as a requirement. Many
developers would already have this plan to present.
Another thing that directly deals with the subdivision
and the subdivision only, is the 1.6 acre park that has
"already been given for Greenbriar, that is going to be
used for Greenhaven with 100 units on it. I don't see
where that would be adequate. Therefore, it is our
contention that, unfortunately, the people might use
our adjoining acreage for their park, which, as has
been pointed out, sometimes contains livestock. I
would ask that the planning board, if they were to okay
this subdivision, would require_ a chain link fence, at
'Least 8 feet high, to keep the people out of the
adjoining livestock area. The reason I ask this, is we
have had situations where we have put electric fences
up and the neighborhood kids lean their bikes against
'i't- and short them out, and then they areuseless to use
for livestock fences. Secondly, I would like to
�.. address everyone here. What this board does is just
recommend. It is much more important that we are all
at the city council meeting when they vote. They are
18
our elected officials and it is just as important that
we' are' there" as we are here tonight.
Gary Crowe, representing his parents, Don and Patricia
Crowe, who reside at 1471 Hwy 2 West, said basically
you have heard all these concerns before but for the
purposes of this record, I will address the aspect of
the subdivision as proposed. I will speak to each of
you individually as you were kind enough to address
your concerns individually. Obviously, some of the
biggest concerns here are that we are going to have a
"'huge effect on the character of the neighborhood. This
subdivision, as proposed, will -affect the quality of
the lifestyle of the 60 residents who appeared in
opposition to both the change in the zoning, as well as
the subdivision. This was articulated by Mr. Bahr.
Certainly you have to have an ear to the track as to
what public voice and sentiment you are hearing. I
find it real interesting that in neither of the
residential subdivision proposal or the zoning
proposal, that we have not heard from Mr. Daniels, the
property owner. We didn't have an attorney for Mr.
Daniels. What we had was a real estate broker, and his
brother, and they have a vested interest in this.
Certainly when have 60 residents and landowners, their
voice' must be heard. These are people who own
property, 3/4's of the perimeter of the proposed
subdivision, who are here with a resounding opposition
C� to this subdivision. Even the landowner within which
the subdivision itself is to be located, isn't here to
support his own proposal. We are looking at the
characteristic of the entire area being changed. We
have an obligation to stay with the public voice as
articulated by Mr. Bahr, but in addition, we have an
obligation to stay, as Mr. Lopp'articulated, with the
R-1 established designation. R-1 encompasses 1
dwelling per acre It does not encompass 100 dwellings
on a 13-acre parcel. It is obvious, and should be
clear to all members of the commission, including
yourself Mrs. Kennedy, that you have a situation here
where certainly this subdivision with its volume is the
inherent problem." You have a situation where there are
no parklands designated within the subdivision. He is
"submitting that we are going to use parkland from
another subdivision. Who is going to use that
parkland? Are we going'to put that on swing shift?
In addition to the quality of the area being affected,
T have to agree with Mr. Lopp, that we do not take into
account with this proposal anything whatsoever, with
regard to the proposed bypass. I don't know how much
plainer it can be than that we have a letter from the
state department of transportation who is not only
discouraging you, but suggesting that you prevent any
�} bypass
development of any type within the proposed
t� ypass corridor. Mr. Birk can stand up and say that we
have 120 'feet latitude, 'but 'the "bottom line is that
19
this is in the corridor area. He cannot argue that
this is not 'Within that dictate that you received from
MDT. It would behoove you as a political body to at
least give Mr. Martin's letter the same professional
courtesy that he is asking from you. I have to agree
with Mr. Lopp, I never did want the thing over there to
begin with, but I am not here to argue the merits of
the bypass. But that is where that beast is lying at
this time. That is where this proposed subdivision is
also lying. That cannot be overlooked by this
commission.' Thirdly, we have a situation regarding
public safety. The situation on public safety has not
I-- even been addressed here by the developer. Let's
assume, for example, that we are going to address those
safety factors that Mr. Hester articulated. The
question is that all of those safety factors, from the
little retired schoolteacher that got up to Mr. Hester
talking about the intersection and a flashing light, to
various other aspects. We are talking about the
impacts on safety of not only the neighborhood, but the
"'100' 'families ' that would be in this proposed
subdivision We are not talking about safety in the
subdivision, but about areas outside the subdivision.
Mr. Birk has not addressed that at all in his proposal.
"Obviously, if he is not going to address it, he is not
going to pay for it. So, who is going to pay for the
"safety needs that 100 families are going to put on the
adjacent area Iaround this proposal? It is going to be
the taxpayers'; and you all know how the taxpayers like
to pay for various mistakes that are made at this
" level. Fourth, we have a situation with Hathaway Lane
at present that I would really wonder about as an
`alternative route. Mr. Parsons recommended denial
based primarily on the fact that there was no secondary
access. Basically, there is nothing before you at this
time to the contrary. There is no proposed secondary
access to this subdivision. Mr. Birk said that he had
talked to Ron Pack and there is 30 feet over here.
Well, I'm sure there is a whole lot of property over
there The problem is, you don't have anybody standing
here telling you that they are going to allow this
gentleman to use that as a secondary access. Unless
and until you do, that is reason enough to deny the
subdivision request.
We have no storm drains. I was raised in this area,
and this is an old marsh. There is a one acre pond
—located directly south of the site, and we have a very
high water table in this area. What are you going to
" do regarding high water and the difficulties that
brings forth. They haven't been addressed in this
plan. What is that going to do to the adjacent
property, let alone the proposed subdivision, itself?
The bottom' line is that you have no less than 75%
vocalized opposition to this proposed subdivision of
adjoining landowners. If Mr. Birk has the liberty of
20
talking about Ronnie Pack hearsay, so can I. Ronnie
Pack has half of the east boundary, and he withdrew his
proposal not�too long ago, so where does Ronnie Pack
stand on this? You could have as' much as 85%
opposition to this subdivision. More importantly, the
detrimental reliance, there are people here who bought
property in the affected area. You gave them an
opportunity to choose what they wanted, and these
"'people told you resoundingly we want R-1, we want this
lifestyle, we like this quality, we like this place.
Don't let two developers come in motivated. by the
dollar and tell you that this is not what these people
are entitled to have.
Kim Ross, 1468 Hwy 2 West, is opposed to this proposal
and agrees with everything that has been said.
Jeanne Linrude, 680 Two Mile Drive, next to this
development, and is opposed to it.
Bill Wills, 1479 Hwy 2 West, is opposed to the
subdivision.
Pat Wills, 1479 Hwy 2 West, is opposed to the
subdivision.
Donald Crowe, 1471 Hwy 2 West, I own 9.6 acres
immediately south of this proposed subdivision. I
'fenced it with a 4 1/2 foot -'woven wire fence, with
strands of barb wire on top. It is a ladder for kids.
They can run over it just like a stepladder, which they
do. I raise alfalfa on this piece of land, and I
harvest approximately 1500 bales a year in two
cuttings. At those_ times of year when my hay is ready
to bale, it could very ea -silt' be burned. It is very
dry. I have a hay barn just across that field. The
" concentration of kids in this development will come
" across that field, because there is nothing that kids
like better than to play'in a hay barn. They can go
around the east end of my fence and come across the
field. They can go around the west end through a pipe
fence. They can walk 200 feet, crawl through a split
rail fence to get'to the pond. Unfortunately, it is my
stallion pen. I raise quarter horses. I have
stallions and brood mares. After the hay is up, I put
my brood 'Mares and colts in the field next to this
subdivision.' Do you think the kids are going to stay
out? Those mares are going to kick someone's head.
They don't like kids playing with their babies, and
neither do I. I have a pond that is about one acre in
'size. It is`not very clean, but it is deep. There is
nothing to keep the kids out of that pond. Every year,
kick kids' out of my pond. Kids I've never seen,
catching frogs and running around. My stallion is in
there from the first of May until the end"of September.
Another concern `is that Hathaway Lane is not the road
21
that people think it is. The shoulders are breaking
off Where the'mail truck stops, it is sagging. If
�1 you increase the traffic, the county will have to
reconstruct the road.
Ed Marks, said I own 300 acres across the road from
Hathaway'Lane. First, they are right about the runoff.
There is a high water table in the area, and it will
probably raise the water table a foot from all the
runoff from the oiled streets, the houses, etc., which
is going to put a lot of the neighbors' basements in
the water. Secondly, I am in the trucking business,
and'I know something about how long it takes to stop a
truck. You can put all the lights you want to at the
bottom of the hill, but unless you put a 25 mph speed
limit at the top of the hill you aren't going to get a
truck to stop, especially in the winter when it is ice.
You put another 100 families out there, you are going
to have lots of problems.
Russ Marks, I live at 30 Hathaway Lane with my wife
Rhonda. One of the safety issues I have is the
traffic. We moved out of Country Estates two years ago
so that we could get away from high traffic areas so
" that our kids could run around in the yard, and we
wouldn't have to worry about someone running them over.
You look at Hathaway Lane and you might say that you
can build a sidewalk there, but I don't think the
"enviro'nmentalists will allow you to increase the width
\� of that road, to build a sidewalk or not, because we
had trouble getting septic approval because of the
small marshy area that is in the northeast corner of
'the property. I think you have bad environmental
assessments on this project.
Brett Katsiff, 577 Two Mile Drive, and my wife and I
are opposed to- the subdivision.
Stanley Gross, 40 Hathaway Lane, submitted a copy of
his testimony in opposition to the proposed
subdivision, which is attached as a part of the
minutes.
Sheryl Hester, 100 Hathaway Lane, said that she and her
husband own approximately 10 acres adjoining the
proposed subdivision on the north side. I have the
same concerns as Mr. Donald Crowe regarding grass fires
and drainage, and I also have horses, stallions, ponds
and a creek. I am concerned about the lack of parkland
in the subdivision and am asking you to vote against
the proposal.
Bob Cole, 1470 Hwy 2 West, and I am opposed to the
Csubdivision development.
22
Isabelle Larson, my husband, Don and I, oppose this
subdivision. "We' adjoin'Hesters' property, and about
three years ago, the people that own that property set
a field on fire, and came tearing through there at
eight feet high. Without the help of our wonderful
neighbors, our place would be gone. So, that needs to
be addressed. The other thing is that the ground in
that area is very unstable, because the water table is
about 7 feet under the ground. I understand that this
is causing a few problems at Greenbriar that is
presently being developed. When the big trucks come
down Two Mile Drive, it shakes our house. The bypass
is planned on"that route, and all of this adds to it.
There is truly serious consequences for the water
'level, because it is so high: The land shifts and
pollution are serious, and the water table could rise.
Robert Leiman, 1930 Hwy 2 West, reiterated the
statement he made earlier on the rezoning. When they
looked at this just a few years ago, on the Ashley
Creek side, the Highway Department had some very good
statistics of data, that they gave to the city council.
It is a hazardous intersection. I live on the creek
side' and Lwhen I am go west on -the way home, I take my
life in my hands every day. I bought a new car a
couple of years ago, and I didn't even get home with
it. You need turn off lanes or lights. We have had
one logging truck, two pick-ups, and five passenger
�) vehicles in our stretch of the road, and I have lost
four mailboxes, until I could get concurrence from the
post office to move it off the highway. So, that,
along with the other statement I made about the water.
Please consider the water. The runoff ends up in
" Ashley Creek, then into Flathead River and into
Flathead Lake. The fishing is practically nil.
Dan Johns, after almost 30 years of hanging around
baseball fields, I was the starting pitcher, and I
always wanted to be a closer, but I didn't have a good
enough fast ball, so here it is. I ask you to approve
-the recommendation of FRDO with the additions provided
by Mr. Hester. They are very well stated. When you
"look at moderately priced houses and you look at the
application and submittal, you see $15,000 lot and
$1251*000 home. That is $140,000. If that is
moderately priced housing, so be it, but I don't think
the Flathead is at that level, yet. Five acre parcels
in the valley is a problem. The neighbors in this area
got together, came to the various bodies and got the
approvals for one acre parcels. You have some
covenants`submtted'to you as part of the subdivision
proposal. But it says they can be changed by the
majority of the owners, so you can approve these today,
and they can be changed tomorrow. They are no good.
By not granting the R-4 none this proposal is
impossible. This development requires a zoning change.
23
Please recommend the staff's findings as modified by
Mr. Hester.
Ed Marks, wanted to add that the groundwater is going
to get into a lot of people's septic tanks.*
Don Crowe, added that Larry Parsons has ten acres
across from this development, west of Hathaway Lane.
Prior to 'purchasing that, it was owned by Dr. Allen.
He had beautiful visions of building a number of homes
there. He had it perc tested in three areas. Only one
on one side of the creek, two on the other side were
accepted for septics. That tells you a little about
the area.
There being no further comments, the public hearing was
closed and the meeting opened to Board deliberation.
Each board member received a letter from Valerie
Parsons.. whose letter was entered into the record and
made a part hereof.
Discussion Lopp proceeded to include the findings submitted by
Dennis Hester into the staff report.
Under B. RELATION TO ZONING, add: The proposed density
is far greater than surrdundinig properties and is not
in keeping with the"`general character'or integrity of
" the area'.'
Under C. RELATION TO SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, add: The
statistics used in the environmental assessment do not
reflect" the application which is for 50 lots of
duplexes. The statistics presented are for 48 lots.
Under E. PUBLIC SERVICES/FACILITIES, add: Approval
would `be premature as the area is not ripe for
development since the proposal depends on
infrastructure to the east and outside of the property,
which is not 'in existence, namely a city street
connecting to Corporate Way.
Under F. EFFECTS ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY, add: (1)
The road' access and right of way avail abl e` from the
subdivision -onto Hathaway Lane is unclear and
unresolved; (2) The intersection of Hathaway Lane and
Hwy 2 cannot safely accomodate the increased traffic
without major improvements, which have not been
addressed by the developer; and (3) The intersection of
Corporate Way and Hwy 2 has not been addressed by the
developer.
Under H. EFFECTS ON THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT add: There
are environmental''concerns regarding "drainage and
adjoining wetlands to the west and south that have not
been adequately addressed by the developer.
24
Under I. ,.EFFECTS ON AGRICULTURE, add: A perimeter
buffer between the proposed subdivision and adjoining
agricultural lands has not been addressed. These
adjoining lands are utilized'for livestock, including
horses, which pose a danger to new residents' and the
animals. Negative impacts on adjoining properties have
not been"adequately addressed.
Motion
Lopp moved to adopt the subdivision report #KPP-95-03
for Greenhaven Subdivision, accepting the findings of
fact as amended and forward a recommendation of denial
'to city council. Hodgeboom seconded. On a roll call
vote Sanders, Bahr, Hodgeboom, Lopp, Carlson and
Kennedy voted aye. The motion to adopt the amended
findings of fact and recommend denial of preliminary
plat for Greenhaven Subdivision carried on a 6-0 vote.
President Therese Hash returned to preside over the
remainder of the meeting.
ZONING TEXT
The next scheduled public hearing on the zoning text
AMENDMENT /
amendment to allow hotels in association with hospitals
HOSPHOTEL
was deferred until after the public hearing on the PUD.
President Hash changed the order of the agenda to hear
the public hearing on the Northwest Healthcare PUD
prior to the zoning text amendment, after getting
consensus from the Board.
�) NORTHWEST
Hash introduced a request by Northwest Healthcare for
HEALTHCARE
a zone change from H-1, B-3 and RA-1 to a Residential
PLANNED UNIT
Mixed Use, Planned Unit Development in the RA-1 zone.
DEVELOPMENT %
The intent of the PUD is to provide a zoning district
BUFFALO
classification which may provide flexibility of
COMMONS
architectural design and mixing of land uses while
preserving and enhancing integrity and environmental
values of an area. This classification sets forth a
time frame for improvements to be installed, types of
uses permitted, lot sizes, landscaping, street layout.
The project is located between US Highway 93 on the
west, Grandview Drive on the east, Sunnyview Land and
'
Heritage Way on the south, and Indian Trail Road
subdivision on the north.
Although the City Attorney has not completed his review
of the terms and conditions proposed to maintain the
''integrity of the plan, the Board has agreed, by
concensus, to hold the public hearing on this matter.
Staff Report Parsons gave a detailed presentation of FRDO report
KPUD-95-1. The statutory procedure for evaluating a
zone change was reviewed relative -to the criteria set
forth. Staff had a number of concerns with the
doc'ument submitted by the applicant, li-cant, which were
itemized and read through for the benefit of the
J audience Given the number of questions and concerns
' th document, staff 'could not recommend
invol ving _ . ,_...
25
approval and given the importance of this project a
denial - should not. be made. It was therefore
- (-�
recommended that the public hearing on the Northwest
Healthcare PUD be continued to allow time to adequately
..............
" address the concerns of the City.
Questions Bob Lopp noted that staff raised a lot of issues that
needs to be reviewed by the city attorney. Where are
you in the process of meeting with the developers
concerning the issues that you raised? Parsons
responded that the developer has received a copy of the
staff report. At this point in time, he has not
received any correspondence from the applicant
concerning the 'staff report.
Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to the proponents of the
project.
In Favor David Greer, spoke on behalf of Northwest Healthcare.
"I think"it is a good application and one that the city
will find a real asset to the community. He wanted to
commend Northwest Healthcare for proposing a Planned
Unit Development. When you do a PUD, you master plan
that site, coordinate the roads, the landscaping, the
extension of services, and land uses. I want to first,
go through the application, and second, address the
-issues that were raised. The application includes a
series of maps, which I will show as I get to those
separate headings. There is an application in the
Buffalo Commons book that includes findings of fact,
which are presented as to the rationale of the program
and PUD. This' is a detailed process which they have
"""been working on since last January. Greer introduced
the multi -disciplinary team who worked on the project.
The first part of the application requires that we do
a plat, showing all the adjoining tracts of land, which
he pointed out on the map. A transportation network is
shown. Some of the things which are unique to this
"plan, is that we propose to abandon Heritage Way,
because it is an unsignalled intersection and does not
line up with another street. In lieu of that, we
propose another road extension to connect Heritage Way
" at a"different location. A new intersection would line
up with Northridge Drive, which would be signalled.
Northridge Drive would continue as a collector road for
connection with Grandview Drive. Windward Way would
extend back onto Sunnyview Drive.
Another map was displayed showing the land use pods.
The transition of land uses were explained. He pointed
out the various open spaces, the highway buffer and how
the open areas interconnect. Use allowances for each
were reviewed as set forth in the PUD narrative.
He pointed out that for the retail/commercial/office,
we selected B-1, H-1 and R-5 uses, so there would be a
M.
real neighborhood oriented type business area. The
only exception to that is the hosphotel. The
professional medical uses are listed, which might be
associated with a medical campus. It also includes the
" possibility of having residential uses.
The engineering plans -- what you get in this
application is more detailed than what you would get in
a preliminary plat application. The various
infrastructural needs were modelled by Peccia
engineering firm, taking the worst case scenarios, to
ensure that it is sufficient to supply the needs for
this community. He pointed out that the roads will be
built to city standards. An extra four (4) feet on
each side would accomodate two bike lanes. He went
over"the trip generation rates shown in Tabe 3, page
19, which was done to ensure that the street system
works. The architectural renderings were pointed out
to be inward oriented, which is a requirement of a PUD,
so that nothing faces the highway. Landscape
treatments, signage, parks and commercial buildings
were described in detail, to illustrate how everything
will work. A trail system through the landscaped areas
was explained. He pointed out that the city_ is
included as party to the covenants giving them the
authority to enforce them.
Greer thought the phasing plan a great one, because it
works well as presented. if 'the'phasing'is done in
order, there is nothing that can go wrong with it.
However, -if the phasing is changed, alternative
scenarios are explained.
Bonding appears to be a real controversial element.
None of this can be done without subdivision review.
"We would'come'in here with a preliminary plat, which
will offer the city an opportunity to establish
conditions -of approval. State law allows you to bond
for improvements associated with subdivisions. It is
very clear that if you don't build all the required
infrastructure, then you bond for them. I think there
is some concern that maybe there could be something
built in one of these pods that doesn't require
"subdivision review. We will go through subdivision
review, so the city will have an opportunity to examine
.. each phase' '-' before it is built, and will bond
accordingly at that time.
That is an overview of the application, and I think it
is real important to understand that this is an
integrated application. This is a planned unit
development, and a lot of work has gone into ensuring
a quality development.
I would now like to addr
ess the concerns expressed in
the staff report. -As you might expect, I' was a little
27
disappointed with the staff report. It was written
with'an"objective' to find everything bad about the
application. There was 'not one positive thing written
about this application, nothing said about the
landscaping, 'the architectural qualities, it was all
negative. I think the overtone of the report is one of
confrontation and distrust, and I am also disappointed
in the overview that there were not any maps to show
" the 4 audience.' I think the effort that was put into
this was easily dismissed by the staff report.
As to concern #l, that Northwest Healthcare does not
appear to have a high level of .commitment to the
project. I think that is an inappropriate and
unfounded statement, and should not have found its way
into any staff report. Northwest Healthcare bought the
land for hundreds of thousands of dollars. To me`that
is a commitment. They proposed a PUD instead of
incremental development. They are setting development
standards for the entire property, and from the very
onset have said they do not intend to be developers.
They want to be able to control development, set
standards for development, but they themselves, do not
want to be developers.
#2 -- a detailed index. The way this application was
organized was by the findings that are required in the
application, so the application was formatted to
J address each of those accordingly. I hardly think that
-the-'lack of an index is grounds for denial.
#3 -- remove any reference to Heritage Way. We
honestly thought we were doing everyone a favor by
proposing that. I recently talked with the public
works department, and they indicated that the best
course of action for Heritage Way would be to require
right turns only. That is fine. We just thought that
one less approach onto the highway was better.
#4 -- regarding the covenants.' I didn't write the
covenants. They were written by an attorney, and they
" 'do make sense, because it is a phased development.
Each phase is a little different and should have their
own homeowners association. They do allow sharing of
board members across the pods so that they can comment
on the detail as built. There is only one property
owners association that will share in the maintenance
of the common area. There is a separate architectural
review committee for each land use pod.
#5 -- the retail/commercial/office designation. Our
intent is one hosphotel. I think from a traffic
"standpoint and logical location standpoint, it will go
-�, in this area here, [he indicated on map] , and there was
,1 a concern on the height, and that will be addressed
J later. It is smaller or the same size as Day's Inn.
M
The only thing that might be 35 feet is the hosphotel.
I think the development standards that are in there are
- adequate. As to the single structure, 4 retail spaces,
\, he referred to the Buffalo Commons document, page 8 of
the covenants for retail/commercial/office. "All other
uses specifically listed above have no specific size
limitations other than what is necessary to achieve a
setback..."
#6 -- The only reason to do a residential planned unit
development is to mix land uses. He read from the
Kalispell Zoning' Ordinance, page 561 "Within a
residential PUD district, the uses and structures
permitted in R-1 through R-4 zones and RA-1 through RA-
3 zones shall be allowed." Anything allowed in those
zones are allowed in a residential PUD. Medical
offices are an allowed use in the RA-1 zone, as are
multi -family units, and hospitals. This is a
residential PUD by definition. Further down on page
56, it says you can add 10% commercial uses and still
call it a residential PUD. It also says that small
retail stores, coin -operated laundry and dry cleaning
establishments, beauty shops and barber shops are
allowed in a residential PUD. That is allowed without
a mixed use PUD. We are allowed 10%, which is 7 acres
of commercial use without a mixed use PUD. On page 57
a mixed use PUD is defined, which allows 35%
commercial . In our PUD, adding al l the roads, etc. , we
J have'' 21%.' This ' is allowed by right. That is my logic,
and- I'h.ave expressed that to several staff members, and
I did it before I submitted the application. I have a
'letter from the city, confirming that they agree to
that. The first thing that we talked about was a
residential mixed use PUD and we ended that meeting
with the same discussion. I explained my rationale for
what is commercial and what is not commercial. I got
a follow-up letter on this meeting and they indicated
that everything seems to be in order except for
bonding. Bonding continued to be an issue. But, the
idea of residential mixed use PUD and using B-2, B-3,
and B-4 uses seem to be appropriate.
#8 -- drainage retained on site. The application
indicates that a number of different techniques will be
used to deal with drainage, and french drainage is a
part of that. Again, because we are going through
" subdivision review, those details can be worked out.
On sidewalks, I'm not sure what the concern with that
was, because I think every document you have includes
this design, that shows there will always be a
"boulevard separating the street from the sidewalk.
On #9 -- We tended to take the worst
model water, sewer and traffic. Also,
Cl; will be detached single family.
case scenario to
the "'development
29
#10 -- We don't anticipate a waiver of sidewalks, but
you never know. We have done a lot of sidewalks, and
a lot 'of trails, but if it is going to hold up the
i application, we won't ask for any waivers.
#11 -- elevations, the wall signs will be as per the
Kalispell Zoning Ordinance.' All signage is described
in the application and are addressed in the covenants.
#12 -- As we plat each phase an architectural review
committee will be created for that phase.
#13 -- What we showed in the application were concept
"drawings,'but they "were" based on the standards set
forth in the application. All the concerns will be
reviewed at the time of preliminary plat.
#14 regarding parks/open space. That's okay, if the
city doesn't want the parks, even though it will
-benefit a l-ot of people. However, we think it would be
inappropriate to pay a cash in lieu fee as it will cost
a fortune to do this parkland. What we are asking, and
this is out of the state subdivision law "If the
proposed plat provides for a planned unit development
with land permanently set aside for park and
recreational -uses sufficient to meet the needs of the
" persons who will ultimately reside there, the governing
body may issue a order waiving cash donation
requirements. I think if we have to pay cash on top
of doing all the parkland improvements, it is kind of
an added penalty. At least, by state law, there is a
way out....
#15 -- Look on page 7 of the first set of covenants,
which explain that is the intent. It will be a city
"street -and I think" t is probably the responsibility of
the city.
#16 -- b. All of these maps were part of the
application. These'landscape plats were full size, and
"we *turned in' full size rather than cute and paste.
#17 -- a. We are asking that the city donate 20 trees
a year for five years, under the program they operate,
and the parks department seemed very cooperative in
that effort, because there are going to be hundreds of
-trees associated with this. b. and c. All these
concerns are addressed in the covenants, and everything
will be done to'city standards.
#18 -- a. At the time that each phase is developed,
all underlying lot lines will no longer exist. b. No
subphasing will occur. c. All phases will be
freestanding. d. If you look at the regulations for
a PUD there is an amendment procedure that talks about
if you don't finish the PUD and i't is abandoned. There
30
would be no reason to abandon a PUD, because it is
already bonded. The bonding here is the subdivision
� review, preliminary plat. Prior to final plat you
\ l can't record it until all improvements are installed or
bonded.
#19 -- a. We didn't do a subdivision, because with a
PUD, what you see is what you get. It is locked in.
Any changes would require going through the process to
get the PUD amended. b. No subphasing is intended.
#20 -- a. Northwest Healthcare will have ultimate
responsibility to pay for the signal. Our estimates
are, at this time that if Phase I and Phase II are
built out, it will take almost all of Phase III before
we reach 3000 ADT. Ultimately, the state highway
department will determine that. b. Take this out of
the application, we won't do any rough grading. c.
This , it says if you don't comply with the schedule
and you don't do the improvements, the city council can
proceed with abandonment. Again, if everything is
bonded, there' is no reason to abandon it. We think
everything will be bonded pursuant to subdivision.
This -is out of the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations
and this is where you get your bonding. Before you get
`final - plat, the public works director - has to certify
that all required improvements have been installed or
securely bonded for installation. That is out of the
subdivision enabling legislation, and I don't think the
zoning enabling legislation allows for bonding. So, if
you are doing a PUD, which is a zone change, you can't
really bond it, because there is no enabling
legislation to authorize it. The proper place to bond
in a PUD is through subdivision.
#21 -- a. If the PUD were abandoned for some reason,
it would revert back to the underlying zone
classification. We really don't have to do a PUD on
this property. We could ask for separate zones. So,
theoretically' you would get an H-1 zoning
classification, with an RA-1 and a B-1. He described
various scenarios, pointing out that the infrastructure
"has to be inlplace'for each phase, no matter which is
built first.
#22 -- Every phase will be freestanding and can be
guaranteed through subdivision review.
#23 -- We coordinated all this stuff through the
various departments, and have had good cooperation with
the parks and public works departments. I would
respectfully request that we not be required to do 36'
roads. If you add up all the roads and ROW it is 10
acres , and I don't think we need that much alpha 1 t .
Grandview is 22' wide. Hwy 2 West 'is 26' wide. I
don't think we need that wide of' streets inside the
31
subdivision. We are not trying to attract a lot of
traffic through the residential portions'to Grandview.
In conclusion, I think Buffalo Commons will be a great
place to live or work. -We tried to address the future
development on all 70 acres. [He recapped all the
highpoints of the plan.] I recommend that you adopt
" the findings of fact for the zone change as set forth
in the Buffalo Commons document, and make any other
changes or additions as appropriate. I truly believe
this PUD deserves an unanimous vote of confidence and
trust.
Bill Diers, President and CEO of Northwest Healthcare,
310 Sunnyview Lane. I want to talk a little about how
Northwest Healthcare got involved with this. In 1983
went through a process of short-range and long-range
planning as to where we as an organization are going,
and where health care is going and looking at the kind
of health care services will be needed in this valley.
One of the things that came up was the issue of space.
Over the course of the years, we acquired the 70 acres.
We had two specific purposes. One was to increase our
ability to' provide health care in the future by
expanding to approximately 31 acres. The second thing
was that we 'didn't necessarily need the additional 50
`acres, but this is our neighborhood, that we would like
to see developed in a way that really compliments what
else is going on. So the second part of the'plan was
to influence the development of the rest of the hill.
That leads to the third part of it. We decided that
our mission as a health care organization is not to be
land developers. We also recognize that this piece of
property is a prime piece of undeveloped property in
Kalispell. In order to do .justice to it, w-e should
spend some time, energy and dollars to make sure it is
done right to a quality level. I am concerned that
there is some concern that we don't have a commitment
to this project. We do have a long standing commitment
to this project. It is a place where we live and work
everyday. The other issue of timing, I find rather
interesting. Shortly after we acquired this land, the
city was working on annexing this land. We had a
" discussion with the city to try and slow down the
annexation until we can get these things to come
together.` The city felt that at that point, we needed
to move through quickly with annexation. So we
accelerated our pace. Now, they want us to slow down
in the direction we are headed.
Brian Wood, Zoning Administrator for the City of
Kalispell, wanted a few comments on the record. I
don't want David to give you the wrong impression. The
O city is fully supportive of this process, we have been
''from the outset. I think the PUD approach for the
zoning and development of the property is absolutely
WN
the right way to go. There are, however, some
unresolved issues, as John Parsons brought up tonight.
David is naturally sensitive in that it is his work and
that is understandable. I think an unaffected party
may look at the staff report differently. My prime
concern, and David keeps deferring this bonding issue
until subdivision.. This is something we don't have the
ability to do. He read from the Kalispell Zoning
Ordinance Section 27.21.030(5)(m) which requires that
"...city council shall require bonding or any other
appropriate collateral to ensure that all required
improvements shall be satisfactorily completed..." We
don't have the option to defer until subdivision.
David brought up enabling legislation. As the author
of this ordinance, I would have hoped that he had
checked into the legislation prior to authoring the
ordinance. As it stands now, with an adopted zoning
ordinance, you don't have the ability to grant a
variance from this, so I think it is important that
until that issue is resolved, the hearing be postponed.
My opinion is that bonding has to be provided for, and
approved by Mr. Neier.
Opposition Conrad Lungren, I am one of the owners of the 4-Seasons
Motor Inn, 350 N. Main. I object to the hosphotel,
'since I am an owner in a motel. It appears that
Northwest Healthcare is getting into the commercial
hotel business, whether it is by offering a deal to
somebody, or financing someone, because they have a lot
- of money. They are a nonprofit organization, with lots
of money, competing with private enterprise. I've
worked hard for many years. I am very opposed to a
nonprofit organization competing with private
enterprise in the motel business, whether they do it in
their -'own name or someone else's name.
Per Storli, 640 E. Idaho, and he and his wife own a
motel in Kalispell. There are a lot of good things
they are planning with sidewalks and you name it.
Nobody has spoken about money, and I would like to,
since that is the engine that drives most deals.
Kalispell Regional Hospital is a nonprofit
organization. I am sure that hospital representatives
will tell me that Northwest Healthcare is not a part of
Kalispell Regional Hospital, and as such they are for
profit. 'I don't think that washes. We have been here
for almost 60 years and pay taxes. In ways we have
subsidized Kalispell Regional Hospital because they
have not paid the taxes. And I have no problems with
that. I think the hospital is a real benefit to our
society. But, when a nonprofit organization goes into
a commercial business like building apartments and
motels; there is something that isn't quite right.
Winnifred Storli, 640 E. Idaho, stated I am not
" speaking as a motel person', because my husband has,
33
but, just as a citizen. I feel that the hospital is a
benefit, I have been there many times. I don't know
1 about their finances, but I am working at mental
ealth, and I find it very strange that profits made by
a nonprofit organization isn't put back into training
staff, or lowering medical costs. To me if it becomes
`'bigger and bigger;* it becomes more and more like a
company store. Mr. Diers said^they had several hundred
people working 'for' the hospital . Now they are talking
about restaurants, hotels, more buildings, and pretty
soon' it will be like' a huge corporation. I always
figured that nonprofit organizations would be like
Samaritan House or something not subsidized by medicaid
or medicare. Anything that benefits the public that is
subsidized by our tax dollars, then it should strictly
be for the public welfare and shouldn't become bigger
and bigger, because when they do that is when
corruption creeps in. The nurses, for example, have
come to me and begged me to write letters. They feel
threatened. It is getting too big. That is more
`power, and the people around it don't own it, so there
is a question of going belly up and losing everything.
There is no accountability. We should put a stop to
this land grab, and using a nonprofit organization as
a basis for borrowing money or' having clout, because
then'it gets further away from the public good. And
I'm sure this is 'an issue that the whole county is
interested in and they didn't know about it until it
was in the paper.
There being no further public testimony, the public
hearing was closed and the meeting opened to Board
discussion..
Discussion Lopp and Hodgeboom felt that based on the complexity of
this proposal," the lateness of the hour, and the
interest of those who could not attend or stay this
late to comment on this matter, he suggested continuing
the board discussion until next month.
Hash observed that we are bound by statutory time
limits and'do not have the luxury of scheduling only
one contentious issue per meeting. Because another
public hearing will be held before city council, she
argued to send a recommendation tonight. She feels
that Mr. Greer has addressed the concerns, except for
the bonding.
Lopp said that he personally, does not feel he is
prepared to come to a decision, because I would like to
"hear what Mr. Neier has to say. If I thought what he
had to say will affect public opinion, then I would
have no problem.
Kennedy believes the city is discouraging developments
.. like this and she would like to see more PUD's in
34
Kalispell. She thinks that staff's concerns are nit
picky and that the report is extremely negative, and
she commends Northwest Healthcare for a very fine
project. In her mind, Mr. Greer addressed all these
concerns 'very thoroughly. She would favor closing the
public hearing and forwarding a recommendation to city
council.
There was considerable debate on whether to close the
public hearing or not.
Bill Astle, attorney for Northwest Healthcare,
addressed the Board's concerns. I think you have the
opportunity for the city attorney to participate, which
I -think is always the case. I've learned that dealing
with zoning and subdivisions, I deal with the city
attorney, I share my opinions and try to convince him
to my side. In this particular issue, I think that the
requirement for bonding clearly ties into if and when
the PUD also involves a subdivision. I think that Dave
was absolutely correct, that there is the enabling
legislation from state statute, which gives
municipalities the right to create bonding at
subdivision. I see no authority in state statute, --
-that is, the enabling legislation, -- I have never
heard of it to create bonding at the time of zoning.
So, what you are seeing here is zoning with a planned
unit development, and the bonding is going to be at
subdivision. Dave, chose in his advise to Northwest
-� Healthcare, not to include the subdivision, to leave
some flexibility. I think Dave is absolutely correct.
To eliminate any fear of anything being slipped by
anybody, there is nothing behind what he presented.
Any pod that he showed is going to be for any
particular developer that comes along and wants to do
a development in conjunction with the plan,' and create
a subdivision of that pod. Bingo -- comes the
subdivision bonding for the pod. I have a great deal
of respect for what Dave does, and has done before for
the`city as 'an employee. I've worked wel l with him and
felt he was excellent for this project and has proven
every bit of it. I think he has been unfairly maligned
-- I'm going to get my licks in -- in terms of the work
he has put into this. I think this is the best I've
seen, and I agree with Pam Kennedy, that I would be
very reluctant for anyone else to try to put forth
something as grandiose as David Greer has done here.
It just wouldn't be worth the time. Dave had so many
things he could have done with conventional zoning, but
'he -chose to do something else. So, when a subdivision
comes about, you can simply say that the city council,
under various claims, shall require bonding. So do
what you have'to do,'at that next level
35
Hash said that the zoning ordinance clearly states that
city coucil shall require bonding. It is not up to us
to make a determination on that.
Brian Wood maintained that it should have been part of
the plan submitted.
Hash asked Brian if he had case law, statutory law, or
otherwise to distinguish Bill Astle's position that it
be imposed on the PUD and subdivision at the same time?
Brian responded that he was speaking as the city zoning
administrator, not the city attorney. He follow's
Bill's logic, but in reading through the zoning
ordinance, he doesn't find anything regarding that, at
all.
Fred Hodgeboom said that logically bonding should be
required with the development. But requiring bonding
up front for projects like this will be a real barrier
to ever having another PUD.
Considerable debate ensued on the issue of bonding as
is stated in the zoning ordinance Section
27.21.030(5)(m). It was both city and FRDO staffs'
contention that the application did not completely
address all the issues. The Board felt that it was up
--i to city council to require bonding, and to obtain an
opinion from the city attorney.
Motion Bahr moved to submit a recommendation to the Kalispell
City'Council to rezone from RA-1, B=3, and H-1 to a
residential mixed use planned unit development in the
RA-1 zone, those properties submitted for the rezone by
the Northwest Healthcare, more specifically referred to
as Buffalo Commons. Sanders seconded.
Discussion followed on the motion, to adopt findings of
fact to support the recommendation. Bahr stated that
the city council is the repository for finding out
whether there is a bonding requirement, and whether
this has been adequately reviewed by the city attorney.
That was his motion. Hash was steadfast that findings
needed to be made to support the motion.
The Board proceeded through the statutory criteria for
a zone change, and made findings as follows:
Does The Reauested Zone Complv With The Master Plan?
The subject property is within the jurisdiction of the
Kalispell City -County Master Plan. According to the
} map of the master plan, the property is currently
designated "High Density Residential", with a maximum
density of 40 dwelling units per acre, with some
"Medical" to the southwest, and "Urban Residential"
36
near the highway. The proposed Mixed Use RA-1 PUD
concept is considered in compliance with the Master
Plan.
Is The Requested Zone Designed To Lessen Congestion In
The Streets And To Facilitate The Adequate Provision Of
Transportation, Water, Sewer, Schools, Parks And Other
Public Requirements?
This finding cannot be made. Congestion in the street
is caused by an overburden on the street of traffic.
The requested PUD zone without financial guarantees, as
required by Ordinance, may cause undue congestion.
This because traffic generation is a function of the
intensity of uses that are allowed within a given area
and access to that area. While the applicant has
submitted a plan on paper that appears to be adequate,
the applicant will not be the developer, so without
those required financial guarantees for improvements
this finding cannot be made. Generally the PUD concept
is considered one of the better methods for dealing
with the provisions of this section. Staff considers
the Residential Mixed Use RA-1 PUD as an excellent
method for developing this property.
Will The Requested Zone Secure Safety From Fire, Panic
And Other Dangers?
The development of this project would secure from fire,
panic, and other dangers if safeguards are designed
into the proposal. While each phase is generally
designed to stand on its own, complete safeguards would
require the funding necessary to ensure their
installation.
Development within this zone is subject to development
standards including: lot coverage, maximum building
height, and the provision of off-street parking.
Will The Requested Change Promote The Health And
General Welfare?'
The purpose of the City's zoning ordinance is to
promote the general health -and welfare and does so by
implementing the City -County Master Plan. The Master
Plan generally would support the requested PUD.
Designation of this area as Residential Mixed Use RA-1
PUD would serve the Flathead region with additional
residential, medical, and commercial development. In
addition, this area has direct access to a major
highway making it a good location for medically related
uses...
The zoning ordinance provides a mechanism for public
input and review for all zone change requests. This
process offers an opportunity to ensure that any
37
changes to the official Zoning Map are done in the
general public interest. Additionally, other review
mechanisms are in place to ensure that development is
in compliance with all applicable safety codes.
Will The Requested Zone Provide For Adequate Light And
Air?
The RA-1 PUD proposal will provide an integrated system
of open spaces and landscape amenities throughout all
land use "pods". The proposed density of development
is believed to be substantially less than permitted by
the PUD regulations or by the underlying zoning
district. Please, also, conuslt the PUD Narritive
Supplement included with the application.
Will The Requested Zone Change Prevent The Overcrowding
" of Land?
Overcrowding of land occurs when development out -paces
"or exceeds the environmental or service limitations o
the property. The Subdivision and Zoning Regulations
control the intensity requirements that a property can
be developed with. Adequate infrastructure is in place
or can be provided at the time of development to
accommodate the land uses allowed in the requested
zone. No significant negative impact is expected.
Will The Requested Zone Avoid Undue Concentration Of
People?
Concentration of people relates to the land use
permitted by a particular zone. The proposed zone
change would not increase residential density in the
area. Infrastructure exists or can be provided which
supports the proposed change. The zoning ordinance
covers the intensity of use that would be permitted in
this zone. An undue concentration of people would
result if the property is developed at a level which
exceeds the environmental or service carrying capacity
of the land which would .not happen. The proposed
zoning will insure that the site is properly developed.
Does The Requested Zone Give Consideration To The
Particular Suitability Of The Property For Particular
Uses?
The subject site is well suited for uses permitted
within the proposed Residential Mixed Use RA-1 PUD.
The property appears to be of adequate size and
adequate access to facilities for the type of uses
1 permitted in the proposed zone.
Does The Requested Zoning Give Reasonable Consideration
To The Character Of This District?—
38
The proposed PUD is designed to be compatible with the
medical community and with the surrounding residential
land uses. The PUD design includes a transitional land
use theme as extending from the area of Grandview Drive
to US Hwy 93'. Land use density and intensity of uses
increases in that direction. With few exeptions, the
proposed uses would normally be compatible to RA-1, H-
1, R-3, and B-1 zoning districts.
The property is ideal for the intended uses due to its
location, size, and compatibility with nearby land
uses. Nearly 50% of the property is reserved for
office or medical -related uses. Open space treatments
and locational considerations provide for a logical
blending of residential and samll retail uses with the
medical land uses. Adequate public services are also
readily avilable to serve the intended uses.
Would The Proposed Zoning Conserve The Value Of The
Buildings?
The proposed uses are intended to complement the
character of the surrounding properties and be built in
a regulated fashion to insure excellence in design and
function. The quality of the proposed PUD, as measured
by the transportation system, extensive landscaping,
provision of open space, architectural control, and
scale of development are all positive elements that
should add to the value of this and adjoining
properties.
Will The Reauested Zone Change Encourage The Most
Appropriate Use Of The Land Throughout The
Jurisdiction?
The requested zoning classification would be consistent
with the Kalispell City -County Master Plan. The Plan
and the existing permitted uses under the zoning
ordinance generally identifies this area for this type
of concept.
Amended Motion Kennedy moved to amend the motion to adopt the findings
of fact as discussed by the Board. Bahr seconded the
amendment to his motion. On a roll call vote Kennedy,
Bahr, Sanders, Hodgeboom, Carlson, Lopp, and Hash voted
aye.
A roll call vote was taken on the original motion.
Lopp,'Carlson, Bahr, Hodgeboom, Sanders, Kennedy, and
Hash voted unanimously in favor. The motion carried on
_a 7-0 vote.
ZONING TEXT Next was a request by Northwest Healthcare to amend the
AMENDMENT / City of Kalispell Zoning Ordiance to allow hotels when
DEFINE in association with hospitals in the RA-1 and H-1 zones
HOSPHOTEL and to define this type of facility.
39
Staff Report Parsons presented staff review of report #KZTA-95-1,
1 with a recommendation for denial.
Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the
zoning text amendment to define and allow a hosphotel
in the RA-1 and H-1 zoning classification.
In Favor Bill Diers, handed out some information on the concept
of hosphotels. This concept has been around for a
number of years, and it is something we've considered
for a number of years. As health care systems have
changed, and more patients are not staying overnight in
the hospital or leaving the hospital sooner, we have
identified a need for those people to stay some where
if they are not ready to drive to Libby'or Polson, etc.
As a regional referral center and having long term
patients that are in the intensive care unit, that
there is a need for families. As we have evaluated
this, two things came to mind to cause us to continue
to address this issue (1) convenience and (2)
affordability. Convenience breaks down into physical
convenience to the hospital without having a car.
Secondly, sometimes this need comes up immediately, for
"example someone has just finished their cancer
radiation therapy treatment and doesn't feel well
enough to drive. As Mr. Lundgren indicated, we have
� talked with a number of facilities in the valley trying
\_J to address those issues, and many of the facilities
have tried to work with us to the best of their
abilities, but they can only lower their costs so far.
So, looking at what is available today and looking at
increasing need, as outpatient care increases, we
planned for this in the PUD. The issue of the 20 o and
subsidization was something we also addressed, and that
is why we are looking at this being a commercial
motel/hotel and not a Ronald McDonald house. Many
communities have those things, but they are 100%
subsidized. Our goal was to have a mechanism to have
a motel that is designed in such a way as to have a
breaking point where those folks who can afford to pay
full fare, whether it is tourists, salesmen, put some
of that money into the pot so we can offer more rooms
without any outside subsidization. We feel comfortable
saying that a minimum of 20% of those rooms will be
available at any time at reduced rate. Our projections
show the average will be closer to 40%. Based on what
we have going on in health care, we could have that
filled up, but over the course of the entire year, and
with the overall business plan, we are looking at a
minimum of 20%, an average of 40%, and a peak of 70%.
Some may argue that Day's Inn is convenient, but there
is the problem of crossing Hwy 93. And there is still
l the issue of affordability. During the peak of the
tourist season, $10 off of a $70 room, is not
affordable. This will not happen tomorrow, but we are
40
trying to lay the groundwork to fill the identified
need.
There were no other proponents. The public hearing was
opened to opponents of the text amendment.
Opposition Conrad Lungren, spoke in opposition to this concept
that has been presented. The arguments I had earlier
are still appropriate. As I read this note in the
paper, it says a ratio of 8 commercial to 2 medically
related rooms, is not in keeping with the ordinance.
The argument here is the bid for the 20%. What about
the 80% that will be commercial. It seems to me that
the idea of putting this facility in will be 80%
commercial. Who is going to police it? If the
hospital sells it to somebody, how will they know if it
is going to be 20% medical people, or not? The Day's
Inn is handy, and I don't know where the $70 rate comes
from that Mr. Diers mentioned. I don't know of
salesmen who will pay a rate like that. He says they
can afford it, but they sure don't pay it.
There being no other opponents to the text amendment,
the public hearing was closed and it was opened to
Board discussion.
11
Discussion Kennedy explained to Mr. Lundgren that the Board's task
was to decide if a hosphotel was beneficial for our
community, and that the ratio of use or who will police
it was not within our perview. She would like to see
the ratio adjusted, as well, but how to make sure that
is happening was a question. Hash said she would like
to see a Ronald McDonald house that is fully
subsidized.
Mr. Diers said that at times it could be as high as
100%, but based on their overall business plan a
guaranteed minimum would be the 20%. Rooms will always
be made available for patients and families.
Lopp pointed out that given the community concern with
Second Wind, he feels a hosphotel would generate a
similar reaction.
Hodgeboom thought that a range could be established to
reflect the intent of the proposed facility.
Considerable discussion on the number ratios continued.
Motion Kennedy moved to approve the zoning text amendment to
allow a Hosphotel as part of a Residential Mixed Use
PUD, and amend the definition to reflect that at least
30% of the beds be reserved for patients and/or family
members. Lopp seconded. On a roll call vote
Hodgeboom, Kennedy, Carlson, Sanders voted aye. Hash
41
and Lapp voted nay. Bahr abstained. The motion
carried on a vote of 4-2-1.
ZONING TEXT The final public hearing was on a request by the City
AMENDMENT / of Kalispell to amend the City of Kalispell Zoning
INTENT OF Section 27.10.010 Intent, by rewording the intent
RA-2 section to allow for a more diverse use of the RA-2
zone.
Staff Report
Parsons read through staff report #KZTA-95-2, with a
recommendation to amend the zoning text as requested.
Public Hearing
The public hearing was opened. There was no one in the
audience to speak either in favor or in opposition to
the proposed text amendment. The public hearing was
closed.
Discussion
The Board discussed the reason and intent of the
requested zoning text amendment regarding the RA-2
zone. Hash wanted to know if this was expanding the
central and inner city high intensity uses because the
commercial core was expanding? Lopp felt it was a
classic leap frog scenario, and that it was put in the
text with foresight, not as an oversight. It was
pointed out that more intensive zones are not as
restricted as the RA-2. The use allowances in the RA-1
and RA-2 zones were compared extensively.
Motion
Kennedy moved to forward to the city council the zoning
text amendment modified to delete the reference to
"Thisi-s-4-n-t-ehtle-d-to-serve-a-s--arbtrffe-r-between
eamereial--ancl--stirs=resielentia--�o-ns." Lopp
"
seconded. On a roll call vote Sanders, Kennedy, Bahr,
Lopp, Hodgeboom, Carlson and Hash voted aye. The
motion carried 7-0 to delete the sentence indicated and
forward the definition for the RA-2 zone as modified.
Motion
OLD BUSINESS
Kennedy moved to take the definition as amended and
delete the phrase "...eentral-argil-in.n-a-r--c-i-t-y--i�-and
not --fe,-r- strbtxrba Hodgeboom seconded. On a
roll call vote Hodgeboom and Kennedy voted aye.
Sanders, Bahr, Lopp, Hash and Carlson voted no. The
motion failed on a 2-5 vote.
Carlson gave an update on the legislative climate
pertaining to land use planning processes.
NEW BUSINESS There was no new business.
ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned (finally) at 2:15 a.m.
Therese Fox Hash, President z beth Ontko, Recording Secretary
APPROVED: _
G�0 � cCy�- 4 ��