05-09-95KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING. COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING
MAY 9, 1995
CALL TO ORDER
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Kalispell City -County
AND ROLL CALL
Planning Board and Zoning Commission was called to order at 6:03
p.m. by President Therese Hash. Board members present were
Walter Bahr, Robert Lopp, Mike DeGrosky, Pam Kennedy, Robert
Sanders, Fred Hodgeboom, Michael Fraser and Therese Hash. Milt
Carlson had an excused absence. . John Parsons, Senior Planner,
and Narda Wilson, Planner II, represented the Flathead Regional
.Development Office. Brian Wood, Zoning Administrator., represented
the City of Kalispell. There were over 150 people in attendance.
APPROVAL OF
The minutes of the April 1J, 1995 meeting and the March jl1, 1995
MINUTES /
meeting were approved as published on a motion by Bahr, second
MARCH & APRIL
by Fraser. All member present voted aye.
President Hash announced a slight change in the agenda, allowing
the LDS Church to be heard first.
LDS CHURCH
The first public hearing item then, was a request by the Church
ANNEXATION &
of Jesus Christ of Latter=Day Saints for annexation to the City of
ZONE CHANGE
Kalispell with an initial zoning classification of RA-1, Low Density
COUNTY RA-1
Residential. The parcel contains approximately 4.5 acres located
TO CITY RA-1
approximately 500 feet north of West Evergreen Drive on the west
side of Whitefish Stage Road. The site has access to Whitefish
Stage Road and Buffalo Stage Road, and is further described as
Tract 2 in the SE4 of Section 5, Township 28 North, Range 21
West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana.
Staff Report Parsons presented report #KA-95-4. An amended extension of
services plan was submitted to the Board which reflected new
information that Parsons received after the packet was mailed out.
Based on the evaluation of the necessary, criteria for the
requested annexation and zone change, staff recommended
approval of the request.
Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to. proponents of the request.
John Peterson, architect for the project, spoke in favor of the
zone change upon annexation and was . available for questions.
No one else spoke either in favor or in opposition to the request.
The public hearing was closed and opened the meeting -to Board
discussion.
Motion Kennedy moved to adopt report #KA-95-4 as findings of fact and
forward a recommendation to City Council to grant the zone
change from County RA-1 to City RA-1 upon annexation. DeGrosky
seconded. On a roll call vote all members present voted.aye. The
motion carried unanimously.
1
HAWK ZONE The next public hearing was introduced on a request by Rick Hawk
CHANGE / on behalf of six (6) property owners for change in zone from
SAG-10 TO SAG-10 (Suburban Agriculture) to SAG-5 (Suburban Agriculture).
SAG-5 The properties are.approximately 35 acres located on the west side
of Highway 93 north of the Stillwater River crossing,
approximately 1600 feet north of West Reserve Drive. The site is
further described as Tracts 1DBA, 1DB, 1D, 1DC, 1C, 1CB, 1CBA in
Section 25, Township 29 North, Range 22 West, P.M.M., Flathead
County, Montana.
John Parsons introduced Narda Wilson, Planner II, to the Board.
She will be assisting him.
Staff Report Narda Wilson presented report #FZC-95-06, which evaluated the
zone change request in accordance with the statutory criteria.
Based on the findings, staff recommended the zone change from
SAG-10 to SAG-5 be granted.
Hash asked if the property immediately north of this was a
proposed golf course? Narda responded that the property north
is actively farmed and that Grizzly Golf is approximately 1 mile
north of that.
Public Hearing The public hearing was opened. to those in favor of the zone
change.
In Favor Sandra TenEyck Hawk, spoke in support of the zone change. It
is her mother's property, and she would like to be able to split
it.
No one else spoke either in favor or in opposition to the zone
change. The meeting was opened to Board discussion.
Motion Fraser moved to accept report #FZC-95-06 and the findings of fact
therein, and recommend approval of the zone change from SAG-10
to SAG-5. Lopp seconded. On a roll call vote Hodgeboom, Fraser,
Lopp, Bahr, Sanders, Kennedy, DeGrosky and Hash voted aye. The
motion carried on a 8-0 vote.
RV OVERNITE Hash introduced the next agenda item which was a request by
PRELIMINARY Carver Engineering, Inc., on behalf of Maurice and Peggy Eddie
PLAT for preliminary plat approval to create a 45 space recreational
vehicle park on 4.488 acres. The R.V. park is proposed on
property located approximately 850 feet north of West Reserve
Drive and west of Highway 2 East (LaSalle Road) with access
directly off of Highway 2 East. The .project will be served by the
Evergreen Water and Sewer District and will be known as R.V.
Overnite. The site is further described as Assessor's Tracts 1AC
and 1AF in Section 28, Township 29 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M.,
Flathead County, Montana.
�J Staff Report Narda Wilson presented a detailed overview of report #FPP-95-10.
The preliminary plat application was reviewed in accordance with
the statutory criteria and the Flathead County Subdivision
Regulations. Based on the evaluation, staff recommended
2
conditional approval of the preliminary plat for R.V. Overnite RV
Park. Based on letters received from Burlington Northern and
from homeowners in Silver Shadow Estates, staff recommended that
condition #7 be amended to require a 6 foot high fence along the
north, west and south boundaries, and a 4 foot high fence along
the east boundary.
Kennedy asked Wilson if the 12 foot wide roads should be
increased to accomodate the fire trucks? Wilson responded that
staff would prefer that the developer negotiate with the
Evergreen Fire District. Kennedy applauded the requirement for
a recycling receptacle and asked if it was going to be a standard
condition? Wilson explained that for tourist oriented businesses,
she feels the developer should take responsibility for recycling.
Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the proposal.
In Favor Joe Smith, 62 Willow Drive, said. I am not involved with this
project, but it was said that they were past the boundary for
dust control, but because they are 850 feet from it, they should.
pave. So, that means that line isn't the boundary. I don't think
there is a lot speed with campers, so there wouldn't be that much
dust.
Cameron Storle, 633 Shadow Lane, an adjacent property owner, is
l"mil in favor of this project, but has concerns about the fencing along
the BN right of way. He referred to his letter which was included
with the packet.
Andy Hyde, with Carver Engineering, representing the applicant,
spoke in favor of the project. He addressed the conditions they
have concerns with. Condition #6 and #7 pertain to a landscaping
and fencing around the entire perimeter of the RV park. He
suggested that they would like to delete the requirement for the
4 foot fence on the east side, which is the highway side. There
is not the issue of security on that side, and the property owners
feel that it would be more inviting for potential customers without
a fence. The south side is already fenced. They have no problem
with fencing the west and north sides of the park. Their plan is
to have the exit roads within the park be very close to the
property line on the east. They would prefer to have the
landscaping buffer between the RV spaces and the road, which he
pointed out on the displayed plat map.
Condition #3, which is to pave the interior drive. We are
proposing in the application that the roads be gravel. The
concern is with the dust, but I agree with some of the earlier
comments. The traffic through the park will be slow, with a
10mph speed limit. It is a seasonal use, so there will not be
vehicles using it all year round. In addition to the gravel, they
propose a dust control seal coat. Item #11 limits the area and the
height of the sign, and it is less that what is allowed by the
Flathead County sign ordinance. We are suggesting that condition
#11 be changed to comply with the Flathead County Sign
Regulations. This recommendation by the planning staff is
3
restrictive. We can live with the requirements of the sign
ordinance. There were comments made about the road width with
regards to fire access. They are working with Jack Lingle the
Evergreen Fire Chief on the fire access. The trash receptacles
will be located per the Department of Health regulations.
There were no other proponents of the project. The public
hearing was opened to opposition.
Opposition John Christian, Deputy Sheriff spoke on behalf of Sheriff Jim
Dupont, who is out of town. He asked me to come to the meeting
tonight to oppose the proposal for several reasons. One, is the
restricted budget that the sheriff's department is under. It is
stretched to the limit and it is a real problem. I can foresee that
this proposal would be similar to Glacier Pines which is located
out on Highway 35. Our calls are quite high in the summer in
that area, and I can see the same thing developing here.
There was no further opposition. The public hearing was closed
and the meeting opened to Board deliberation.
Discussion The Board went through the conditions of approval for the
preliminary plat for R.V. Overnite RV Park. DeGrosky took issue
with the road width. Fire Chief Lingle has expressed a concern.
The UFC does specify a width of 20 for all fire access roads. He
is not comfortable with verbal assurances. He would like to see
Condition #3 and #5 be modified to reflect that all internal. roads
shall meet the Uniform Fire Code. The Board agreed by consensus
to these amendments. Lopp added to condition #3 that all the
internal roads meet the air quality attainment standards. The
Board agreed to this addition by consensus.
Condition #6, which the developer requested that grassy areas be
allowed in lieu of a landscape buffer along the east boundary was
discussed. Fraser felt that this was already addressed in the plat
design and would satisfy the perimeter requirements. Condition
#6 was rephrased to read: "... ten (10 foot wide landscape buffer
shall be maintained around the south, west, and north boundaries
of the recreational vehicle park, and the east boundary shall be
landscaped as shown on the preliminary plat,..."
The fencing as required in condition #7 was discussed and
changed to have a minimum six (6) foot high fence along the
south, west and north boundaries, and four (4) foot high fence on
the east boundary.
The issue of signage was discussed. The Board felt that the
signage should comply with the County Sign Ordinance. If the
sign ordinance needs to be changed, that can be addressed under
new business. Condition #11 was amended to state that: "The
signage shall comply with the Flathead County Sign Regulations."
The comments from the Flathead County Sheriff's Department was
deliberated on at length. All Board members are aware of the size
of their jurisdiction and the budget constraints they are
4
1 ) operating under, however, felt that this particular tourist related
business being in closer proximity to the City of Kalispell may
make it easier to respond than if located in the outlying areas of
the county. The ongoing problem of impacts from development to
the schools, water and sewer facilities, roads, and sheriff's
department again brought up the issue of impact fees. Hash
observed that this is a problem that the Board faces every time
a proposal of this intensity comes up. One way of perhaps
dealing with the problem of impacts to the community is to quit
approving developments. This brought forth a round of applause.
Fraser stated for the record that this is an opportunity to
express to the City Council and County Commissioners about our
concerns over impacts to their services. He suggested that a
condition be added: "That the developer shall evaluate the cost
of services in consultation with the sheriff's office, and provide
a plan for mitigation." Discussion followed on this concept.
Kennedy asked if this was a condition to be imposed on
development from this time forward, or a condition for
developments which the main users are out of state users who do
not pay taxes to help recover costs.
Fraser said that he feels we have an obligation to respond to the
comments received from the public sector.
Bahr observed that as undeveloped land it is probably paying
taxes of about $1000 per year. As a developed residential mobile
home park, it will probably be about $5,000-$10,000 per `year.
Supposedly, all residents and businesses are assessed to pay their
fair share of what it costs to run the public sector.
DeGrosky stated that nationally it can be shown that for every tax
dollar that is brought in by new development, local governments
are paying $1.23 for services. Individual developments have an
impact on the taxpaying public.
Lopp pointed out that we cannot pick on just this one developer,
when there are many AV parks in the valley. It is unfair
taxation.
Hodgeboom agreed that this valley needs to come to grips with the
growth problems. The County Commissioners, as the policy making
board needs to set a policy for establishing impact fees.
Hash noted that on many occasions we get testimony from the
school districts regarding the impacts to the schools. To now put
in a condition which is essentially wishful thinking, is an exercise
in futility, but more importantly, as a Board we should send a
strong message to the governing bodies to set policy to do
something. It is important for the public to realize that they
can't reap the benefits of increased tourism and at the same time
not pay the price, which take the form of increased taxes or
decreased services.
5
Lopp said he would support, under new business, that we request
the County Commissioners and City Council to establish a study of
impact fees, which would look at all impacts to schools, traffic,
health facilities, etc. The Board, therefore, did not add condition
#15 as suggested by Fraser.
Motion Kennedy moved to adopt FRDO Subdivision Report #FPP-95-10 as
.findings of fact and forward a favorable recommendation to the
.County .Commissioners for the preliminary plat approval with the
fourteen (14) conditions as amended. Hodgeboom seconded. On a
roll call vote Hodgeboom, Bahr, Lopp, DeGrosky, .Sanders, Fraser
and Kennedy voted aye. Hash voted no. The motion carried on
a 7-1 vote in favor of granting preliminary plat approval for R.V.
Overnite RV Park.
STILLWATER The next public hearing was on a request by the Flathead Regional
RIVER/SHADY Development Office and Dennis Carver on behalf of William Lincoln
LANE - MAP to amend the Kalispell City/County Master Plan Map. This
AMENDMENT amendment would change the.. designation of approximately 240
acres located on the north side of Conrad Drive from Shady Lane
to the Stillwater River from Suburban Residential to Urban
Residential. The area is further described as part of the S2 of
Section 4, .part of the N2 of Section 9, Township 28 North, Range
21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana.
Staff Report John Parsons presented report #KMPA-95-01. The request was
evaluated in accordance with the necessary criteria, and based on
.the . findings, staff recommended the master plan map amendment
be approved as requested by William Lincoln and FRDO. The
Board must also direct staff to prepare a resolution of their
decision and the recommendation and forward it to both Kalispell
City Council and Flathead County Board of Commissioners..
Questions Hodgeboom expressed concern with this area being largely in the
100 year floodplain, and wanted to know why it was not included
in the findings? Parsons replied that the staff report does
acknowledge the existence of the floodplain. Hash asked staff
what statutory authority FRDO has to expand a request for a
.masterplan map amendment?. Parsons responded that the Flathead
Regional Development Office is the planning office for the County.
Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those. in favor of the Master
Plan map amendment.
In Favor Dennis Carver, representative for William Lincoln who submitted
the request for a map amendment. The reason for the request is
because Mr. ,Lincoln wants a higher density allowed on the
property, so that he can develop it.. The services are nearby, so
they would like the urban density.
There being no other proponents, the public hearing was opened
r� \` to the opposition to the requested map amendment.
\J%
Opposition John Christian, Flathead County Deputy Sheriff, is opposed to the
map. amendment. The increased density creates a lot of problems
6
for .law enforcement. At this point, with all the development going
on, it is important to recognize that law enforcement is stretched
very thin.
Tom O'Neil, said I live across the river from Bill's property. I am
also representing my neighbor, Bill Short, of 347 Conrad Drive,
who could not attend tonight's meeting. Mr. O'Neil read a letter
from Mr. Short into the record as .follows: I am opposed to the
changes -to the master plan, and I am opposed to the zone change
from R-2 to R-5.
Mr. O'Neil, speaking for himself, is also opposed to it. I moved to
the country so that I could relax. I have chickens, horses, and
ducks. If they go to that density, then the next thing they will
zone me out, and I don't like it.
Jackie O'Neil, said that we are not developers, unless you consider
us developing our own property. We have developed our .places,
because we love the land, we love space. We are tied to the land,
and don't want to be the city. We have been where there are a
bunch of transients, and all they want to do is take. They take
and don't give anything back. There is danger, as well. Last
week, -there were a bunch of campers who moved in under the
bridge on the Stillwater River. We live on . a game preserve, and
there were geese being chased off their nests by dogs running
loose, and I heard shooting. We called the police. Later, these
same people were literally showing themselves to a neighbor's
daughters. She had to call the police. Later, these same people,
one of them stabbed the other and ended up in jail. So, I agree
with the deputy. Lastly, this is like deja vu. I am from Florida
and this happened to me before. I lived in a beautiful community.
We let the developer come and we believed .that everything was
going to be fine. Just a year later, we got zoned out by higher
density, and we had to get rid of our horses. If we allow this to
happen here, we will be outnumbered and will be forced to change
our lifestyle.
Rusty Hendrickson, I own 20 acres north of Mr. Lincoln. On the
map there is shown the south [transportation route] connection.
Recently, there was a survey and this connection was voted down
2 to 1. This is something that .has been speculated on for 15
years, and funding is still not available, and we don't know if it
will ever be available. So, in time, this area may be zoned urban
density, but at this time the community and the government does
not have the funding to . I agree that everyone .has .rights, but
one person's rights end where another's begins. That road
cannot connect to Lasalle without going over my property, so why
would the community allow one man to design a road to his best
interests and not in the best interests of the taxpayers. This was
voted down on the traffic survey, and if someone says that maybe
we will do this in the future, then maybe in the future we should
consider this. At this time, there is no funding available, so I am
opposed to this.
7
Debra Hendrickson, is opposed to the amendment to the Master
Plan for the same reason that Rusty stated. I believe it is
putting the cart before the horse. We should look at the road
alignment where it actually should go. Acquisition of this said
property should be considered before threatening that it is going
to be there. The master plan amendment then would do as FRDO
says, rezoning is not appropriate if the master plan isn't amended.
Rezoning is considered only after studying the impacts of a
development like this. On behalf of Bill Lincoln, I couldn't. imagine
that he as a developer, would want to go ahead and develop his
property without knowing about this Lasalle extension.
Dave Ivey, said I am a contiguous neighbor of Rusty's. My
biggest concern is, we moved to a rural area to get out of the
city to escape that sort of thing. Now, I am being threatened
with 350 families moving in across the street on 50 acres. It
seems to me that just 50 homes is more than a generous amount,
without putting 350 families there. The people who move into
these manufactured homes don't pay the taxes, and the people are
voting the school bonds down.
Sandra..McIntyre, concurs with previous testimony, and would like
to reiterate that we need to look at the impacts of development.
I would like to see .that happen before you keep approving all
these.
Christie Erickson, begged the Board to consider the foresight we
should all be thinking about in terms of these master plan
amendments or zone changes. Down the. road, if you look at what
is being done to the Evergreen residents with this master plan
amendment. For the most part, everything on tonight's agenda is
going to impact the Evergreen taxpayer. We are not against
development or growth. We know all of that is important and
inevitable. . But, does it all have to happen in Evergreen? We
have sewer and water, it can all come into Evergreen now. Well
what we won't have is taxpayers who can pay for it. We have got
our share. We already have a huge amount of this type of
development. Our schools are burdened. We have doubled the
low income families in Evergreen. This needs to be spread out.
Paula Williams, .agreed with all the previous testimony, and was
opposed to the map amendment.
Jewel Henneman, wanted to reiterate that there will be impacts to
the school system. The classrooms are already overcrowded. Our
children are not able to get the education they need.
Gary Fisher, 206 Forest Drive, agrees that we need to look at the
impacts to the schools. I have been a school board member in
Evergreen for 15 years, and I know what we are putting up with.
We have tried to consolidate with District 5, but they don't want
i us, because they are crowded, too. We have been told to go to
12 months of school per year, but that will cost another third of
what it costs for education to do this. We can't even pass a
$2500 bond, let alone a $3 million bond to build a new school.
8
Elaine Joern, 159 South Cedar, is opposed to the change from
suburban to urban density. We have four acres and moved out
there for a rural lifestyle, and feel this is opening the door to too
much population density.
Mark Miller, lives across from the William Lincoln's property. I
agree with everything the opposing points have said, and also, I
think you should look at the impacts on the water quality. If it
changes to 8 units per acre -- I have 6 acres, so that means I
could put in 48 houses. The water table is about 10-20 feet from
the surface, all on Spring Creek. These developments are going
to be the end of any kind of wildlife habitat along Spring Creek,
especially Lincoln's proposal, as quite a bit of his property has
Spring Creek through it.
Charlene Lingstead, 440 Anderson Lane, and this property has
been in her family for 40 years. She said that many of you were
not here in '64. We were promised at that time, when there were
very few families in the area, that Conrad Lane would be widened,
because we couldn't get our equipment and horses out of there.
It hasn't changed one bit in forty years. There are no more
dollars now than there were then. There was a subdivision
proposed between Mr. Lincoln's property and ours a few years
ago, which the neighbors were strongly opposed to, because the
water flow is that direction. We have wells. It looks like
Evergreen Sewer is full. Kalispell doesn't look to me like it has
the money to come across the river with water to make this
available. So, we need protection. I have a question on the area
being served by the Evergreen Fire Department. To my
knowledge this property is served by South Kalispell Fire
Department. We are talking about two different animals.
Robert Keith, 745 Conrad Drive, is opposed to the map amendment.
He thinks that all these people have brought good points and he
agrees with the opposition to the amendment to the master plan.
Carl Daly, 300 Anderson Lane, said I am opposed to this
amendment for all the reasons that have been stated. There is no
way you can put 8 units per acre without Evergreen Sewer and
that is not available right now.
Beverly O'Brien, 688 Scenic Drive, said I am opposed to the map
amendment for environmental concerns regarding water quality.
The high density will change the rural density to urban, and that
would be a major life change for me.
Caroline Jacobs, 243 E. Evergreen, agreed with everything that
the previous speakers said in opposition to this.
There being no further speakers in opposition to the requested
master plan map amendment, the public hearing was closed and
Cthe meeting opened to Board discussion.
Discussion Hodgeboom had some real concerns about the proposed increase in
density in an area which appears to be at least 50% or more, in
I
(� the floodplain. The citizens of Flathead County overwhelming,
indicated during the county planning process, that they wanted
to protect the floodplains. That was number one. I agree with
the water quality .and wildlife issues. These are very sensitive
areas. I have real serious reservations with increasing -the
potential density in that kind of environment. It is not suited to
urban densities.
DeGrosky shared Fred's concerns. This area is close to the city
and city services, and could be considered as infill, but it is also
close to important recharge areas for -two rivers and several
streams. I share the floodplain concerns. It seems like the
rationale is, since the master plan envisisions residential
development, it is okay to go for quadruple the residential
development that is allowed now. I don't follow the logic there.
I don't feel that the master plan envisions urban density down
there. The master plan envisions a suburban residential density
down there and we should stick to what the master plan says.
Pam Kennedy said that she was disappointed with FRDO that they
increased the proposal from 50 acres to 240 . acres. I think that
we need to seriously look at the capacity of the Evergreen Sewer
District and what they have planned for the future. If the master
plan has indicated this area as being suburban, I am sure that is
what the Evergreen Sewer District had intended for their
capacity. I think we need some indication from Evergreen Sewer
�,- and Water that they believe they will be able to handle it. I
think we are premature in bringing this forward without any kind
of resolution from them and feel that 240 acres is far too much to
bring forward for a master plan amendment from suburban to
urban density. It would highly impact all the residents in the
Evergreen area, and I feel this should not be allowed.
Bob Lapp said that in the past year, we have had a major
expansion of mobile home parks along Shady Lane, and I raised
some of these same .issues without getting very far. I am still
opposed to that kind of density. Admittedly, the '64 flood is
supposed to be a 100 year flood, and with the way the snow
patterns have been, it may be longer than that. But, nonetheless,
much of this is in the floodplain and ultimately, if/when a natural
disaster does occur, it is -the rest of us that have to pay for it,
as well as the people who have to go through it. I cannot
support the level of density that is being requested. There have
been many good reasons presented tonight. The plan, as
presented, allows development that I cannot support.
Therese Hash said that she has many concerns with this, but most
have already been addressed.
Motion Kennedy made the motion to direct staff to prepare a resolution
recommending denial of the master plan map amendment based on.
the public testimony presented, to be signed by the chair. Bahr
seconded. On a roll call vote Kennedy, Lopp, Fraser, Bahr,
Sanders, Hodgeboom, DeGrosky and Hash voted in favor of the
motion to deny the requested master plan map amendment.
10
LINCOLN ZONE The next public hearing was on a request by William Lincoln for
CHANGE / change in zoning from R-1 (Suburban Residential) and R.-2 (One
R-1 AND R-2 Family Limited Residential) to R-5 (Two Family Residential). The
TO R-5 property is approximately 50 acres located on the north side of
Conrad Drive and east of the Flathead River and west of the
Stillwater River. The site is more particularly described as the
SE4 NW4 and Government Lot 3 of Section 9, Township 28 North,
Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana.
Staff Report Parsons explained the procedure to pursue subsequent to the
recommended denial of the master plan map amendment. The
staff's findings were based on his recommendation for approval of
the map amendment.
Parsons presented report #FZC-95-03, which reviewed the
requested zone change from R-1 and R-2 to R-5, with a
recommendation for approval if the Master Plan Amendment were
approved. Since, it was not, the request in not in conformance
with the Master Plan and should not be approved.
Public Hearing President Hash explained to the audience that the zone change is
requested based on the previous request for a Master Plan
Amendment, which the the Board denied. A public hearing is
advertised for this request, however. She opened -the public
hearing to those in favor of the zone_ change.
In Favor Rich DeJana, attorney representing Bill Lincoln, said that as he
was listening to the testimony, he wondered when Bill Lincoln
would get his hearing on his 50 acres. I can't say that I
disagree with the people that are saying they don't want to be
planning a road. That wasn't part of this proposal. We don't
disagree with including the type of text amendment that was
needed to back this, to the map amendment, including 240 acres
of a substantial portion of which is . in the floodplain. But a
substantial portion of Mr. Lincoln's property is not. We are
talking about a 50 acre zone change. The law requires compliance
with the Master Plan. If you read the text of the map amendment
as proposed earlier, you will find from the staff's point of view
that what was needed was a map amendment, not a text
amendment. There is a legitimate argument that this zone change,
looking at only Mr. Lincoln's property, is in substantial compliance
with the Master Plan. Not the plan map, but the master plan. I
think it is important to recognize what has. happened here was
some sort of effort to make sure this road gets built wherever it
is. Some sort of effort to master zone an area that perhaps
wasn't. He feels that the grounds exist to approve the zone
change on 50 acres.
There being no other proponents of the zone change, the public
hearing was opened to those opposed.
Opposition Tom O'Neil, I am opposed. There is no sewer down there, and we
are on wells.
11
1 Debra Hendrickson, said that in addition to everything that was
-- said before, taking into account what he said about this being
solely Mr. Lincoln's property, then the Lasalle extension road is
nonexistent at . this point. This brings me to -the road that is in
existence. With the other developments on Shady Lane that have
already been approved, and building this development, the traffic
on Conrad Drive would become much more hazardous. There is a.
sharp dangerous curve opposite Anderson Lane. Bill Lincoln's
property is on that curve. Conrad Drive from the Circle K
opposite Woodland Park is narrow, partially unlined, has no bike
path or shoulder, has three major curves, two of which are blind
curves, all have limited visibility. All three of these dangerous
curves are within one eighth of a mile to the access to Bill.
Lincoln's property. Adding to the risk of driving that road is the
junction of Willow Glen and Conrad. A well used junction for
logging trucks as they continue on to Shady Lane driving two of
those curves. Trying to turn east onto Conrad from Willow Glen,
one has -to go beyond the stop sign to see the oncoming traffic.
Because you are trying to judge. cars coming from a blind curve,
you must constantly look .as you are turning so as not be
surprised by a vehicle. Turning west it is necessary to come way
out into the junction to be seen and anticipate the traffic from a
blind corner and the opposing traffic. Traffic accidents are not
uncommon at this junction, nor are cars going off the curve due
to the hazardous roads. I hesitate to allow my children to ride
their bikes because of the danger on that road. Another issue
that concerns me, is the environmental degradation. These 50
acres does back up against the Flathead River and the Stillwater
River. There is a high water table. If you are going to rezone
to urban zoning, the snow melt or stormwater runoff can carry a
volume of pollutants into the water, especially with the traffic and
population density that will add to this. New construction for
housing and transportation contributes -to water pollution from
erosion and sedimentation. Sand and mixtures of sand with
chemicals or salt are used to keep winter roadways open and safe.
When. applied to roads, these chemicals runoff into water bodies,
causing water quality problems. Surface water pollution could
also increase due to additional oil drips, and tire wear washing off
the roads and into the surrounding waters. Bill Lincoln's
property, as is ours, is inclusive in the wildlife preserve. On our
property we have wild turkeys, deer, foxes, owls, eagles, beaver,
otter, pheasants, ducks and geese who use the seasonal wetlands
in the early spring. Wetlands reduce flooding and trap sediment,
nutrients and other pollutants. Converting wetlands -to building
sites eliminates those functions. Other concerns associated with
wetland destruction include loss of wildlife habitat and reduced
groundwater recharge.
Dave Ivey, 901 Conrad Drive, stated that the property proposed
for this development is right out my front yard. During the '64
flood, I dug sand out of my house, I have pictures of the water
C) where this is proposed. If somebody tells me that isn't the
floodplain, that is ridiculous. I saw it. I know it.
12
Sandra McIntyre, 409 Anderson Lane, concurs with what has been
said. I felt that the report was somewhat misleading in the actual
impact. This is a very heavily used road. People do not use
Highway 2. They use the back road and . access Kalispell via
Conrad Drive. Please look at the impacts before you consider
something like this.
Jackie O'Neil., concurred with the previous testimony. If you put
hundreds of houses on 50 acres of land, that is going to the first
step for making this a city. I am opposed.
Gary Fisher, stated that this is like pouring water on sandy soil,
pretty soon you have a river.
Paula Williams, 205 Shady Lane,. concurs with . the statements
already made. The traffic is a problem. My house is on the
corner of Shady Lane and Conrad Drive. I have mobile homes
coming by knocking over the garbage cans, my mailbox isn't even
mounted anymore, because it is laying in my driveway next to the
drunk driver, my hedge has been driven through, my kids don't
play in the front yard. I risk my life every time I pull out of my
driveway. I don't need any more traffic.
Elaine Joern, I was opposed to the R-5 zone change last year on
Shady Lane. That development isn't even up and running yet.
There are over 100 spots for trailers that will increase traffic
coming through that area. I am opposed to any more zone
changes.
Mark Miller, 56 Sager Lane, said he. is opposed to -the zone change
and to the Lasalle extension which used to be the east side
bypass route, for all the same reasons that everyone has
mentioned. Especially pertaining to the water quality. If that
road goes through it will have a very negative impact on the
water quality, Spring Creek and the whole area.
Charlene Lingstead, 440 Anderson Lane, who is also speaking for
her neighbor Dr. Williams, who could not attend. Our concerns
relate to the health issues from the impacts of this density. The
man can develop this 50 acres under the present plan. I don't
care if the engineers say this isn't the 100 year floodplain. We
have had 7-10 years of dry weather. The first two winters with
snow we have, the water is going to come through there. The
water has washed out portions of Conrad Drive many times before
and it will again.
John Christian, 502 Mountain View Drive, is in opposition to this
zone change. I have worked for the sheriff's department for 23
years, and I have answered calls on Conrad Drive and Shady
Lane. That road system out there, including Holt Stage Road, is
not able to withstand this type of impact unless there is a great
improvement to the road system. Willow Glen is overtaxed. Holt
Stage is beginning to see a lot of impact from development.
Shady Lane is crazy. We have had some serious accidents out
there at the intersection of Hwy 35 and Shady Lane. I don't see
13
any proposed plan or any development of those roads. So I speak
from a twofold position. As a taxpayer and as a deputy sheriff.
Robert Keith, 745 Conrad Drive, said he concurs with everyone
else who spoke and is opposed to the zone change.
Melanie Brander, 161 Bernard, used to live at 250 Anderson Lane,
and she is opposed to development between two rivers where it
will impact nature and wildlife habitat. It bothers me greatly that
we are pushing the animals from where they used to be.
Christie Erickson, 44 W. Evergreen, is opposed to this for all same
reasons already .mentioned. What good is zoning if it can be
changed?
There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed
and the meeting opened -to Board deliberation.
Discussion Hash said that technically, since we recommended denial of the
master plan map amendment which would support the zone change,
we need to make our own findings to deny the zone change.
Walter Bahr commented that the neighbors are adamantly opposed
and the road 'system is badly in need of repair. It is getting
increased traffic without subsidy. Right now, I do not think that
is an appropriate zone change.
Bob Lopp asked staff if the two mobile home parks that were
previously approved were zoned R-5? Parsons responded that
was correct. Lapp asked if that was appropriate, because the
master plan calls for the entire area to be suburban residential.
Parsons explained that the existing mobile home parks were zoned
R-5 by the Commissioners at the time this area was zoned.
Basically, everyone with a mobile home park was zoned R-5. It
didn't follow the master plan. When we took action on the
expansion of the existing mobile home parks, the Commissioners
approved it as infill. .Lopp noted that this 50 acres is not
contiguous to an R-5 zone, and this particular zone change would
constitute a spot zone. Parsons replied that in this particular
instance, assuming the master plan amendment is not approved,
this would be considered a spot zone.
Kennedy differed from Mr. DeJana's opinion. I do not believe that
this is in substantial compliance with the master plan as it exists.
I think the density is -too high.
Fraser commented that the master plan was implemented after
many public hearings on what the .zoning would be. I think the
zoning is more than a number on the map. There is public trust
involved. We have received some very good public opinion and we
should respond to that. We should address their concerns, in
detail, in our findings.
14
Hodgeboom expressed his discomfort with the findings of fact with
regards to the floodplain, water quality, wildlife habitat, and those
types of issues.
The Planning Board acting as the Zoning Commission, proceeded to
make findings of fact to deny the zone change from R-1 and R-2
to R-5, as requested for property described in FRDO staff report
#FZC-95-03.
EVALUATION BASED ON STATUTORY CRITERIA
The statutory procedure for evaluating zone changes is set forth
by 76-2-203, M.C.A. Findings of Fact for the zone change request
are to be discussed relative to the criteria described by 76-2-204,
M.C.A.
*Does The Requested Zone Comply With The Master Plan?
The subject property is within the jurisdiction of the Kalispell
City -County Master Plan. According to the Master Plan, the
property is currently designated for suburban residential
development, 1 to 2 dwelling units per gross acre. This requested
R-5 zone is a single family/duplex zone with a minimum lot area
of 5,400 square feet would not be in conformance with the existing
�1 designation.
✓J
The existing Master Plan indicates areas to be protected because
of floodplain and floodway.
Any development proposal would need to take into account the
LaSalle Road connection to Conrad Drive. This connection has
been approved and is in the Kalispell Area Transportation Plan
and is an integral element of the Kalispell City -County Master
Plan. This connection has been taken into account in the design
of and the development of the Shopko property north of . this
request. The exact location of the extension has not been
determined. The .proposed right-of-way for this extension is 80
feet.
*Will The Requested Zone Secure Safety From Fire, Panic And
Other Dangers?
A significant portion of the property is in the 100 year floodplain.
The existing Master Plan and zoning already in place calls for this
area -to be developed as residential. This request, if approved,
would .quadruple the allowable density. . Conrad Drive is
designated as an arterial, however, it is only developed two lanes
of traffic, therefore the request does not secure safety from fire,
panic and other dangers.
Mi
*Will The Requested ChanKe Promote The Health And General
Welfare?
The general purpose of the. County's zoning regulations is. to
promote the general health and welfare and does so by
implementing the Master Plan. The City -County Master Plan does
not support the requested .zone change. Any traffic generation
and infrastructure needs that any proposed development requires
could not be mitigated. It should be noted that this property is
outside the Evergreen Sewer District. Any development which
requires sewer services should be shown to be able to be
provided by the Evergreen Water and Sewer District and the City
of Kalispell.
The zoning regulations provide a mechanism for public input and
review for all zone change requests. This process offers an
opportunity to ensure that any changes to the Official Zoning Map
are done in the general public interest. Public input has
indicated that the proposed zone change is not in the general
public interest.
Will The Requested Zone Provide For Adequate Light And Air? No
Change.
The development standards of the zoning and subdivision
regulations (i.e.: parking, clear vision setback, roadway
improvements, etc.) would ensure that light and air are adequately
provided.
*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 of the..property.
The properties are within an area that cannot be serviced by
municipal utilities. As indicated above, this property is outside
the Evergreen Sewer and Water District. The subdivision and
zoning regulations control the intensity requirements that a
property can be developed with. Adequate infrastructure must be
provided at the time of development to accommodate the land uses
allowed in the requested zone. These will ensure that the
overcrowding of land would not take place.
*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 unduly increase
the intensity of uses permitted on the property.
*Will The Requested Zone Lessen Con�-esti.on In The Street And
Facilitate. The Adequate Provision Of Transportation, Water, Sewer,
Schools, Parks And Other Public Requirements?
Conrad Drive is the access to the subject property which is
currently a 60 foot right-of-way and a County road. The impacts
16
due to this zone change will have a significant effect on the
street system until the property is redeveloped. Conrad Drive is
designated as an Arterial on the City -County Master Plan.
However, this road .is currently only developed with two travel
lanes. As indicated above the LaSalle Road extension to Conrad
Drive runs through this property.
Specific additional demands for transportation, water, sewer,
schools, and parks would be evaluated pursuant to individual
development proposals and subdivision review. Streets for
transportation, purveyor of water, collection of sewerage, and
schools are not presently readily available to the proposed zone
change. As previously indicated this property is outside the
Sewer and Water District.
*Does The Requested Zone Give Consideration To The Particular
Suitability Of The Property For Particular Uses?
The subject properties are relatively level, have good exposure to
the roadway system, which is, however, inadequate for increased
traffic generation. The subject properties are in close proximity
to the City of Kalispell, but the services it provides are not
readily available.
A significant portion of the property is in the 100 year floodplain
and environmentally sensitive riparian areas.
*Does The Requested Zoning Give Reasonable Consideration_ To The
Character Of This District?
The properties in this district are primarily suburban residential.
An overwhelming number of people from the area have testified
they wish -to keep this area suburban residential.
Would The Proposed Zoning Conserve The Value Of The Buildings?
No Change
The proposed zoning would conserve the value of buildings
because the uses allowed in the proposed zone are essentially
same as the existing zone.
*Will The Requested 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 Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission
did not adopt FRDO staff report #FZC-95-03 as findings of fact
and forward a recommendation of denial to the County
Commissioners, for the requested zone change is not in
J conformance with the Master Plan and should not be approved.
17
Motion Kennedy moved to adopt the, findings of fact as made by the
Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission, and
recommend to the County Commissioners that the requested zone
change be denied. DeGrosky seconded. On a roll call vote
Fraser, Bahr, Sanders, Hodgeboom, Lopp, Kennedy, DeGrosky and
Hash voted unanimously in favor of denying the requested zone
change.
OFTEDAHL The next public hearing was introduced which was a request by
ZONE CHANGE / Harold Oftedahl for a change in zone from AG-40 (Agriculture) to
AG-40 TO SAG-10 (Suburban Agriculture). The property is approximately 400
SAG-10 acres located along Foys Lake Road south of Foy's Lake. The
subject property is further described as being portions of
Sections 25, 35, and 36 in Township 28 North, Range 22 West,
P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana, and is specifically described in
Exhibit A of FRDO report #FZC-95-04.
Staff Report John Parsons gave a presentation of report #FZC-95-04. The
request was evaluated in accordance with the statutory criteria
for a zone change. Based on the evaluation staff recommended
that the zone change request be denied.
Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the zone
change request.
In Favor Dallas Herron, 131 Hilltop, submitted a map of ownership of the
J land under consideration to the Board members, which is included
as part of the record. He said that he was speaking on his own
behalf, as well as Harold Oftedahl, who is one of the property
owners requesting the zone change. Mr. Oftedahl is in the
hospital and unable to attend the meeting.
None of the property owners involved in this particular request
are developers. We have been neighbors for over 50 years and
it will probably remain that way for many years. This is not one
person asking for this request. There are ten landowners as
depicted on the map. Harold initiated the zone change request
when he found out he was zoned AG-40 when he tried to give his
nephew some land to build a home on. The neighbors got
together and decided that the current proposal was ,the most cost
effective way to enable some of the families to gift land to family
members. He reviewed the history of the area, primarily owned
by four families.
We considered all our options and feel that there are three
primary reasons for requesting the zone change from AG-40 to
SAG-10. The first concern was cost. By all -the property owners
going in on a single zone change request, it . has cost them about
$1200 to date. If all ten did it individually it would be an
exorbitant amount. The SAG-10 would still allow an agricultural
setting. It fits with the character of the area, as there is nearby
_) SAG-5 and R-2. The second reason is that the planning process
encourages areas of groups of landowners, such as ourselves, to
determine what they want the neighborhood to be. We represent
a 400-500 acre area and this is what we want for that area. We
18
�) all agree that it makes sense to support each other in this
request for the future of our families and their descendants.
This is also what the CPC process encouraged. We also want to
avoid spot zoning. The third reason is to continue the closeness
of the neighborhood and the good stewardship we have for the
land. I would refer to Herron Park as an example of how we feel
about providing good will in the surrounding community. If you
will notice Herron Park is pretty much in the middle of this
project. Since none of us are developers, we have no concern
about how our neighbors will take care of the land. We have over
a 50 year track record of getting along. The roads are already
in. I would urge your approval of this request. By doing so, it
will allow us to continue the tradition of family values.
Leonard Oftedahl, 100 Foys Canyon Road, said that he reiterates
what Mr. Herron said about the families in question here. Our
properties were not intended to be developed. I am a third
generation of one of the families. We get along very well with our
neighbors. We all went to school together, we help maintain the
county roads. Pertaining to fire control. We have our own
volunteer fire . department - the Smith Valley Volunteer Fire
Department. Some of us have our own tanks and pumps. Most of
these properties have been logged, so there is a network of roads
all over these properties. Some of these properties are meadows.
I feel that in order to come to a rationale decision about the fire
\`\\ problem, we have to look at what is around the properties. To
J the south is a private sections of land owned by my .grandfather
and father. All the other land is owned by Plum Creek, the
Department of State Lands, and Stolze Land and Lumber Company.
So, those properties have a right to put roads in for logging or
whatever. The fire situation isn't really going to change because
of what we are doing, because anything that we have done, has
a good road structure around our properties. Most of us even
have fire breaks, and fire lines around our fence lines, both for
maintenance and for fire. So I think the denial in the report
should be looked at a second time.
We are at the end of the road, so there is no through traffic.
The Herron family has contributed. a lot to the. community by
contributing Herron Park. The real fire hazard. there are the
backcountry horseman. Most of the State land and Plum Creek
land around us in the last couple of years have put in a good
road system. The roads are kept up and are safe. All four
families in question here make a partial or full time living off
their land. The sheriff's department has talked about crime areas,
and it poses a problem because they don't have the extra
manpower to support the extra calls. There really is not a need
for them to have a concern in this area. In fact, there have been
a few instances in the past when they come and we have a gun
on the person. So, we are kinda of self -governmental up there.
In order for us to maintain our family lifestyle and have the
opportunity and right to reserve our rights so that our families
�✓ can live the way they have lived for 50 years, that this
Commission approve our request.
19
This land is not for sale. I think all the neighbors are in
harmony with that. We have no intentions of selling the land. We
just want a place for future generations to have a place of their
own.
Nick Jones, 191.0 Garden Way, and I am a third generation Jones.
Like our neighbors, we are not in this to sell. We are in to so
that we can split the land so that maybe some day I can build
there, and maybe when my mom passes away, my son can take
over her home. There is no way of selling. It is not in our
plans. We just want to live there. Right now, with only one home
allowed on the land, I am in favor of the zone change.
Oscar Oftedahl, said that forty acres is classified -as agricultural.
I can't plant a hill of potatoes on it. That is timberland. There
are roads all over the land.
Debbie Oftedahl, 100 Foys Canyon Road, said that. this whole
request came about because my uncle wanted to give my family
and I piece of his forty acres to live on. I don't think you
should assume that all the property owners are going to divide
their property up into 10 acre parcels. They all thought they
had the legal right to do that for years. It wasn't until we asked
to do that, we found out we couldn't. It was just a simple
request so that we could live by our families.
CThere were no other persons wishing to speak either in favor or
in opposition to the requested zone change. The public hearing
was closed, and it was opened to Board discussion.
Discussion Pam Kennedy was concerned that the fire district was not notified.
She would like to hear comments for both the Department of State
Lands and the Smith Valley Fire Department. She would favor
tabling this matter until that issue is addressed.
DeGrosky informed the Board that the DSL position has not
changed since the zoning district was established. However, the
fire issue is not the only reason for staff's recommendation for
denial. Mike had two letters addressing the issue which he read
for the benefit of the Board. One letter was to the County
Commissioners and the other was addressed to FRDO at the time
the Lower Side Zoning District was established, • ap+i +4e
These letters
are a part of the record.
Lopp agreed that there were compelling reasons for zoning this
AG-40, however noted that much of the land being requested for
a zone change is meadows and fields. He is aware that who owns
the land is not a consideration with a zone change request,
however he has known these people most of his life and knows
�. that they are good trustees of the land. He thinks there is more
i merit for this particular request than if we were looking at the
whole area.
20
DeGrosky pointed out that north of here we feel quite strongly
about and would not budge on our [DSL] position. Property lines
defy the terrain, and there are places that are a. fire hazard.
But, I want to reiterate that John's whole rationale has other solid
reasons for his recommendation.
Hodgeboom cautioned about setting an undesireable precedent with
this request for higher density at the end of the road. All the
personal reasons may be very valid, but it defeats the purpose of
zoning if we change it for every request.
Fraser asked if there were alternatives to accomplish the
applicants needs. Parsons responded that unfortunately no one
came in to the office to discuss and review this matter prior to
the application being submitted. Discussion followed on the
options the applicant could. pursue to provide a homesite for their
family members rather than have the entire area rezoned.
Motion Hodgeboom moved to adopt FRDO report #FZC-95-04 as findings of
fact and forward a recommendation for denial to the County
Commissioners for the requested . zone change.
Parsons suggested that the matter be continued for 330 days to
allow the applicants to have an . opportunity to amend their
proposal and pursue alternatives to jeopardizing the integrity of
the zone classification.
There was no second. Hodgeboom withdrew his motion.
Motion Bahr made the motion to continue for 30 days, the Board
consideration of the on the Oftedahl zone change request, with the
option of reopening the public hearing. DeGrosky seconded. On
a roll call vote Bahr, Lopp, Sanders, Fraser, Kennedy, Hodgeboom,
DeGrosky and Hash voted aye. The motion to continue this matter
carried on an 8-0 vote.
President Hash stepped down from the Board on the next two
public hearing items due to a conflict of interest. Vice -Chair Pam
Kennedy presided.
SHELTON/ Kennedy introduced a request by the Patty Shelton Trust / Mike
SEAMAN ZONE Seaman for a change in zone from R-1 (Suburban Residential) to
CHANGE / R-3 (One Family Residential). The property is approximately 23
R-1 TO R-3 acres located 300 feet south of West Evergreen Drive on the east
side of River £toad, approximately 2000 feet west of US Highway 2.
The site is further described as being in Government Lot 4 of
Section 4, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead
County, Montana.
Staff Report John Parsons presented an overview of report #FZC-95-05. The
request was evaluated in accordance with the statutory criteria
for a review of a zone change, and on that basis staff
recommended the request be approved.
21
Two letters were entered into the record which had been
submitted to the Board. A letter from John R. and Ginger Wilson;
and a letter from Wayne and Patsy Treat, both of which were in
opposition to the requested zone change. A letter from the Army
Corps of Engineers was also submitted and by this reference made
a part of the record.
Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the request
for a zone change from R-1 to R-3.
In Favor Mike Seaman, the applicant, is in favor of the zone change. .
Presently, the surrounding area is as a high a density or higher,
excluding the property south of this site. So, basically the
property north is R-3, property that is northeast is RA-1 which
is a higher density, meaning duplexes and multi -family
development. The only property that is actually a lower density
is to the south. I have discussed this with the property owner
before I started through this process and he was in favor. He
felt that if the sewer capabilities were in place and you did not
have to have a septic, then this would be prime property for a
residential area. We could have asked for a higher density, but
we chose to go with R-3, which borders our property. Most of
the property that is zoned R-1 was zoned R-1 because there was
no sewer available. But, now that Evergreen Sewer is
implemented, it is -the time to develop this property. Currently,
the new additions -to the sewer system have only been commercial
additions. There has been very few residential additions, mainly
because of the economics of it. Before I started "this process, I
was told I could hook into the sewer system with the assessment
mandated by the State. Since I have done this, the figure has
changed to $284,000, so I am paying my fair share. I am also
going to provide a .pump station and a main line to Lasalle. As
far as taxes go, currently the property has a tax base of less
than $1000. If we do develop the property to R-3, it has the
capability of producing a million dollars of taxes yearly. So, I
believe it is taking care of its fair share. It has very good
access. In fact, it is probably the most suitable area in the
valley for residential development. It has proper roads, nearby
school, churches, water, sewer, natural gas, affordable utilities for
people who would like to reside in the area. I think the majority
of the people in this room are going to state things that are self.
interests, rather than in the public or community interests. The
reason I say that is that probably the neighbors nearby will
perceive that this will devalue their property. I feel that it will
not. The major landowner that adjoins me feels that this. is a
good idea. In fact, he informed me that four years ago he bought
that property thinking it would be a good place for a development
for a residential community, but we lacked the sewer. Another
point with the sewer is that we have already paid the $6.8 million
for Evergreen Sewer. It doesn't cost any more 'to reach our 22%
capacity than it is to pump 7 u of the city's capacity. I think it
1 will be a great spot for a residential development.
Charles Shelton, 110 W. Nicklaus, said I would like to reiterate
what Mike said. If you would witness the West Evergreen Village
22
Greens Golf Course development, everyone had the same thoughts
- about George Shelton's farm. Their taxes have contributed greatly
to the school district. It is a very wise development and
something which Evergreen can be proud of.
Patty Shelton, 110 W. Nicklaus, was in favor of the zone change.
There being no other proponents, the public hearing was opened
to opponents of the zone change request.
Opposition Tony Dawson, 149 Springdale Drive, wanted to point out that
Village Greens development is in the Edgerton School district.
This development would be in the Evergreen district.
Marcie O'Her.ron, 81 Parkway Drive, said that she has raised five
children that went through the Evergreen school system. We have
successfully petitioned to get the road widened, but it is still
very narrow road, especially in the winter. The traffic will get
worse with more development, and she feels it is very dangerous.
Wendy Kosan, 64 Meadowlark Drive, said she has called the County
Commissioners to put lines on the road in front of the school, and
the county road department said they didn't have time. Our
children have no place to cross the street. It is a very
dangerous road.
Jewel Henneman, is opposed to the zone change. We do not need
the increased density which would further impact the schools.
Paula Williams, 205 Shady Lane, had concerns about the impacts on
Evergreen School, with this development in addition to the Jack
Barrett expansion of his trailer court.
Oliver Kovern, spoke in opposition to the zone change, primarily
on the basis of the property is in a bad location. The developer
seems to have the idea that everyone in the room has the wrong
impression about what is going to take place. I have no objection
to a landowner wanting to maximize his profit on his acreage,
however, I do feel that the land in question is not appropriate.
The highway going to Whitefish .Stage is hazardous. With all the
new shopping malls and developments, the highway is already
overused. I am opposed on the basis that it is an inappropriate
use of the land. It would impact so many things.
Armede. Oursland, 54 River Road, said she was opposed to this
zone change. Mr. Seaman commented that this is a very good
road. There is grass growing on it. I see many cars in the ditch
near the hazardous S-turn.
Forrest Benz, 139 River Road, noted that a point was brought up
about the floodplain. I lived there during the '64 flood. We had
to move out of our place, and I can testify that it is in the
floodplain.
23
Sue Austin, 52 West Evergreen, lives right next to this project,
which is next to the school. The R-1 to the west is already
developed at one acre lots or larger. The property to the
northwest is R-1, and this is R-3, but you have to look at what
is actually there. The lot sizes are huge. This RA-1 zoning used
to be R-1, and it came about because one of the residents was an
elderly lady i:hat asked to build a duplex there to accomodate her
son. That is why it is RA-1. There are no duplexes or
apartments there. This is an R-1 type of development. She
presented a petition to the Board signed by 513 property owners
in opposition to the zone change.
Dick Austin, 52 West Evergreen Drive, had concerns that if -the
Evergreen Sewer Board continues with this, the entire excess of
the Evergreen Sewer district will be used on this one little area,
so that precludes any development for anybody else in the entire
district. There is a waiting list of other developments that would
like to develop their property also. Another one of my concerns
is this R-3. To go from R-1 to R-3 I think you are getting into
spot zoning again. The R-3 on the north side of this development
is entirely single family houses. Our property is zoned RA-1 and
we would be happy to go back to R-1. Our area is single family
development. The master plan says that it is transitional, but we
are pretty well developed into a small residential area.
�) Joe Smith, 62 Willow Drive, said that he feels that mobile home
parks are subsidized by a town. That is not all bad, because
towns have a responsibility to do that for retired people and
young families, but if you look around in Evergreen at what care
are subsidizing now, we are doing our fair share.
Kathleen Dahl, 36 Meadowlark Drive, agreed with previous
testimony and is opposed to the zone change.
Mike McCracken, 45 West Evergreen, is also opposed to the zone
change.
John Nerdig, 146 Westwood Lane, said he agreed with the others
and is opposed to the zone change.
Bob Henneman, lives at 156 East Cottonwood, and is an . employee
at the Evergreen School, and I want to register my protest on the
impacts to the school system, as well as to -the quality of life.
Jim Atkins, 630 Scenic Drive, and I have several objections. This
area is in the floodplain, and the sewer problems. We have five
acres and if we wanted to develop ours to -the R-3 zoning we
would have to compete with those with more money. I am retired
and I can't do it. I think the impacts to the community will be
detrimental. The traffic on that street is bad enough already.
Kaye Atkins, 630 Scenic Drive, and I have several objections, as
well. One is unfair taxation. We are on social security and have
lived on that property for 35 years, and we. cannot stand anymore
taxes for the Evergreen School District. That land is on the
i floodplain. My parents lived just east of this place, and in '64
they had to move out because it was flooded. The field where she
keeps her horse is flooded every spring.
Christie Erickson, 44 West Evergreen, submitted some photos of
the road, and went on to address a few issues. First of all, the
zone change would greatly impact West Evergreen and River Road
no matter what the developer says. Using the last traffic count
done by the county .road department, June 8, 1994, 1 -talked with
Bernie Windauer and he said that road count was 2,294 on West
Evergreen on the west side of the tracks. So anyone turning
down River Road before they crossed the counter isn't counted.
Anyone turning into the school isn't counted. He told me that a
conservative estimate would be a 5-10% increase. So that puts it
at a 2,524 cars on that road right now on an average daily basis.
It is worse during the school year. If this zone change goes
-through, we are talking 8 units per acre. Every . household is
estimated to have two cars and each car making two trips per
day. That is conservative, with 8 trips per day for 148 units,
and now we are up to another 1,200 per day, which brings the
total to 3,724 per day. These are residential areas. Our children
are already trying to get the mail, let alone walk to school. No
one had done a traffic count on River Road, but River Road is
impacted also. The speed limits are posted at 25 mph. We all
know that is a joke. People do 40+ constantly. We call the
`1 sheriff's department, but admittedly they are terribly
understaffed. They can't respond to speeders.
West Evergreen and River Road are designated by the master plan
as county collector roads. I will define that for those who don't
know what that means. It is recommended to be a 4-5 lane road.
The minimum county designator is a 3 lane. We don't even have
a regulation 2-lane. It is 20 1/2 feet wide. The walkway that our
children are supposed to walk on in the best of weather is not
even a full 4 feet all the way. The 90 degree turns that I
photographed on River Road -- in the winter time that is single
car passage, and -this is one of the roads that is supposed to
enter this development. The west end of West Evergreen is very
narrow, and it is highly impacted already. It is falling away.
As soon as the development starts, the schools are going to
impacted and the children are going to be at risk, because they
will have to walk to the East Evergreen Elementary School.
I ask you to look at the findings of fact. I have a real problem
with the findings of fact, as I believe that many of the items are
not truly represented. Under "Impacts to Roads" I believe it is
answered "none". There is an impact to roads. The number of
children per trailer house was .5. The local averages in the
valley .per phone survey, is 3 per trailer. The national average
is 2.1. If you use those figures, this zone change will put at risk
approximately 311-444 children more than are already at risk. We
have 420-600 children already impacting our schools. You are just
going to add .to the problem we .have as taxpayers. I don't
believe the findings of fact are correct, and I have a Fact Sheet,
25
(� [which she submitted to Board members and is attached as part
of the minutes]. Contrary to what Mr. Seaman says, this isn't
just a few neighbors who are being impacted by this and this
isn't for selfish reasons. We all have large lots. We could
convert them to high impact housing if we wanted to, but we
don't want to. We want to preserve the integrity of our
community. That is extremely important to all of us. We also
want to keep our -taxes at a level that we can afford to live where
we are living. The development will attract young families with
less money and more children, so his figures of a million dollar
tax base, I don't believe. They are taxed at a different rate and
we will end up with more units per acre impacting the schools
than what we have right now. The existing residences are on 1/4
to 1 acre size lots. We would encourage development that helps
pay for the impacts. There are 721 trailer rentals in Evergreen.
Evergreen is already .doing its fair share.
Duane Duay, 41 West Evergreen Drive, stated in May 1993 the
residents of West Evergreen Drive were notified that said
property Tract 7A1 located at 37 West Evergreen which was Mrs.
Breck's property, was requesting to build a 12 unit apartment
complex on a 1/2 acre lot. When we went in to fight this one, we
were trying to keep the integrity of the neighborhood. It was all
surrounded by what we thought was R-1 with single family
dwellings. We went in and fought the battle, and won. I think
the reason we did was because of the traffic problems, which has
been addressed, as well as the police, fire, etc. We thought we
had set a precedent for our neighborhood to be a single family
residential area. I -think the impact of 148 trailers is more than
our burden.
John Christian, deputy sheriff representing the sheriff's
department. There are a lot of reasons to object to the zone
change, and many have been addressed. There are some things
that need -to be considered regarding the ingress/egress to this
area. Exiting this area is going to be traumatic for people going
to work during the hours of 7-9 a.m. There are primarily three
bottlenecks -- West Evergreen which goes -to the top of -the hill.
There is going to be a traffic jam unless there are traffic control
devices, and I don't think there is going to be one. When you go
out River Road to the south, there are two 90 degree turns which
turn into a one lane road, which will cause a major problem. More
major than that, is when you try to get onto Highway 2. There
are no traffic control devices there other than a STOP sign. The
traffic will. back up and be a big problem. The other
consideration is the Evergreen school, which will have a severe
impact on the traffic there. You think those crossing guards
have problems now, wait until you start putting more cars
through there. I would like to express my concern as a law
enforcement officer, I supervise patrol -- I would love to have all
five officers state to you the problems we have out there in
Evergreen. The immediate area is overburdened as far, as traffic
goes. The road system will not support more usage. It needs to
be revamped and reengineered.
26
Ron Christman, 60 Willow Drive, wants to go on record as being
opposed to the zone change.
Maureen McLean, 49 West Evergreen Drive, agrees with the other
concerns. I also want to add that this is a wildlife habitat. It is
called River Road because it is along the river, and I think the
impact on the water and sewer is more than we are willing to put
up with at this point.
Corey McLean, 49 West Evergreen Drive, said I am a student at
Evergreen Junior High School, and I don't think the road can
handle much more traffic with 148 trailers being put in. I want
to go on record as being opposed.
Linda Denning, 146 East Evergreen Drive, has been a resident in
Evergreen for 19 years. My concerns are with the quality of life.
My children went through the Evergreen school system and it: was
a positive experience. I now have three grandchildren in the
Evergreen school, and I would like them to have the same quality
of life. I am a jogger, and I know for a fact that West Evergreen
and River Road are dangerous because of the traffic. It used to
be my favorite route to run, but the roads are too narrow, and
I am afraid of being hit.
Randy Winter, 11 Meadowlark Drive, spoke in opposition to the
zone change. We are overburdening all the systems in Evergreen,
including school, fire department, law enforcement, etc. We have
to take a look at this. .Until we can get upgraded, we can't take
a lot more of it.
Debra Hendrickson, said I want to go on record as opposing the
zone change. This is not happening right in my back yard, but
I am a member of the Evergreen community and I would, too,
would like to .uphold the integrity of Evergreen. I don't think
the families in the trailer court would want their children in
overcrowded classrooms or undersized facilities either.
John Menahan, 46 West Evergreen, agreed with all the previous
testimony. I take exception to Mr. Seaman's comment that "us few
neighbors are selfish". Yes, we are selfish. We live in Evergreen
for what it is and we would like it to stay that way.
Ray Newkirk, 188 River Road, stated it is not going to be in my
back yard, it is going to be in my front yard. I could open my
door and see this development every day. I can't see that it is
going to have a positive impact on the community. We have
already lost animals because of -t.he traffic.
Pam Newkirk, 188 River Road, agreed with the previous comments
and is opposed to the zone change.
Patti Berg, 175 Birch Drive, said I want to go on record as being
opposed to the zone change.
27
Larry Oursland, 54 River Road, has lived on property bordering
this particular site for 42 years, and I agree with my neighbors.
The quality of life and the intregrity of the neighborhood, and
taking agricultural land is being threatened.
Gary McLean, 49 West Evergreen, is opposed to -the zone change.
I want to address a couple of comments that were made by Mr.
Seaman. Although the adjoining landowner was not here to -testify
on his own behalf, assuming -that what he told Mr. Seaman is true,
all I can say is that: he would probably like to put another trailer
court in, too. Most of my concerns were addressed by others
here. I have lived there for 15 years and one reason I bought
there after looking around Kalispell, was because this was a rural
setting and I felt fairly confident that my children would grow up
in a safe environment, have a good education, and with all the
developments that are going on, the quality of life and safety
factor are no longer there.
Dorothy Huff, 29 Meadowlark Drive, agreed with previous
comments, and would like to add .that the roads are extremely
narrow and icy in winter time. Also, it was stated earlier that
those of us who are against it are selfish for personal reasons.
I would suggest that this zone change is not for altruistic
reasons.
` Beverly O'Brien, 68 Scenic Drive, stated that she is opposed to the
`.. - zone change because the increased density will further impact
traffic, the environment and is on the floodplain.
Jackie O'Neil, said I agree with all my neighbors and am opposed
to the zone change.
Linda Menahan, 146 West Evergreen, and I want -to go on record
as being opposed and I agree with all my neighbors.
Cameron S.torle, 633 Shadow Lane, and I concur with all the
opposition.
Joleen Thomas, 101 West Evergreen, and I am opposed to the zone
change.
Lollie Hinkley, 225 Forest Drive, and I agree with all my
neighbors, and I .am opposed to the zone change.
Brenda Nearing, 54 Willow Drive, said -that it is a very dangerous
intersection where River Road enters West Evergreen by the
railroad crossing.
Caroline Jacobs, 243 East Evergreen, I am opposed..
Eleanor Benz, 135 River Road, said she agreed with all opposition,
(� '} and is opposed to the zone change.
Jeannie Nerdig, 146 Westwood Lane, and I am opposed to the zone
change.
28
Forrest Benz, 135 River Road, the west side of River Road is a
dangerous road, and he is opposed to increased density.
There being no further public input, the public hearing was
closed and opened to Board deliberation.
Discussion Fraser commented that we have people coming from as far as two
miles away to speak on the issue, where typically we see just the
adjoining property owners. This appears -t:o be quite a community
base.
DeGrosky said that he was struck by the same thing. I've said
it before with different numbers on different projects, but it is
pretty hard to say that 516 people are wrong, and based on the
input expressed tonight, I have concerns about the impacts on
schools, on taxes, sewer capacity, the roads and traffic.
Hodgeboom wanted to know the status of the floodplain and
wetlands issues which were commented on. Parsons said that this
is not in the designated 100 year floodplain. A response was
received from -the Army Corps of Engineers pertaining to wetlands
that essentially says there are no wetlands in the area.
DeGrosky asked why the school property is zoned R-3 rather than
P-1. Parsons said that school property is commonly zoned other
than P-1.
Lopp noted that the problem with the school being zoned R-3
rather than as public land, is that it can be used as an argument
for a zone change, because the adjacent property is R-3. The lot
size in an R-3 zone is 10,000 square feet, so how can the lots be
6,000 square feet in the mobile home park? Parsons responded
that under the zoning and subdivision regulations, there are a
couple of anomolies. One is the mobile home park, because -the
lots are not for sale, but for lease or rent. This would fall under
the subdivision review.
Bahr noted that the neighborhood has spoken loudly, and only the
developers are speaking in favor.
Motion DeGrosky moved to adopt the findings of fact in report #FZC-95-05
and forward a recommendation for approval of the zone change
request. Lopp seconded. On a roll call vote Bahr, DeGrosky,
Sanders, Hodgeboom, Fraser, Lopp and Kennedy voted no. The
motion failed on a 0-7 vote.
The Planning Board acting as -the Zoning Commission proceeded -to
make their own findings of fact.
EVALUATION BASED ON STATUTORY CRITERIA,
The statutory procedure for evaluating zone changes is set forth
by 76-2-303, M.C.A. Findings of Fact for -the zone change request
29
are to be discussed relative to the criteria described by 76-2-304,
M.C.A.
*Does the Request Lessen Cong-estion In the Streets?
River Road is a designated Collector road and is the access to the
subject property; this road is currently a 60 foot right-of-way
and a County road. Current traffic volumes on River Road are
extremely low as this road serves only a scattering of residences
and farmland. The impacts due to this zone change will have a
significant effect on the street system. West Evergreen Drive is
designated as a Collector on the City/County Master Plan.
However, this road is currently only dedicated to 40 feet and
developed with two travel lanes. Significant negative impact is
expected.
*Does The Requested Zone Comply With The Master Plan?
The subject property is within the jurisdiction of the Kalispell
City -County Master Plan. The zoning is not in complete
compliance with the Master Plan. The Master Plan map designates
this area suburban residential and recommends a gross density of
1-2 dwelling units per acre. The proposed R-3 zone provides for
a slightly higher density with up to over 4 units per acre. A
significant negative impact is expected.
*Will The Requested Zone Secure Safety From Fire, Panic And
J Other Dancers?
Development within this zone is subject to development standards
including: subdivision review, setback requirements, maximum
building height, and the provision of off-street parking. Further,
any development of the property is subject to review by the
City's Site Plan Review Committee, and requires the issuance of
City building, plumbing, and mechanical permits. Even with these
requirements and review processes development of the property
would result in significant negative impact, due to current narrow
two lane access roads.
*Will The Requested Change Promote The Health And General
Welfare?
The general purpose of the County's zoning ordinance is to
promote the general health and welfare and does so by
implementing the Master Plan. The City/County Master Plan would
not support the requested zone change.
The zoning regulations provide a mechanism for public input and
review for all zone change requests. This process offers an
opportunity to ensure that any changes to the Official Zoning Map
are done in the general public interest. Public input has
indicated that this is not in the general public interest, because
of impacts to the environment, both natural and manmade. A
significant negative impact is expected.
30
Will The Requested Zone Provide For Adequate Litzht And Air? No
Change
The development standards of the zoning and subdivision
regulations (i.e., density limits, parking, clear vision setback,
roadway improvements, etc.) would ensure that light and air are
adequately provided. No significant negative impact is expected.
*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 of the property.
The properties are within an area not currently serviced by
adequate infrastructure. Both Evergreen community water and
sewer are available to the property, but the proposed density
would impact the systems beyond what the property has been
allocated for. The subdivision and zoning regulations control the
intensity of land use that a property can be developed with.
Adequate infrastructure must be provided at the time of
development to accommodate the land uses and intensity within the
requested zone. These will ensure that the overcrowding of land
would not take place. Significant negative impact is expected.
l *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 increase the
density permitted on the property four fold. This increase is a
significant negative impact.
*Will The Requested Zone Facilitate The Adequate Provision Of
Transportation, Water, Sewer, Schools, Parks And Other Public
Requirements?
This property is located to take advantage of a series of
inadequate public services and facilities. The property is within
one mile of the Evergreen Fire Station, is adjacent to the
overcrowded Evergreen elementary school, the public sewer system
may not be able to supply services to the site, and the property
abuts a dedicated County paved road classified as a collector by
the Kalispell City/County Master Plan, but has only been
developed to loca street capacity. The zone request would unduly
impact these services.
Specific additional demands for transportation, water, sewer,
schools, and parks would be expected from the zone change.
Significant negative impact is expected.
*Does The Requested Zone Give Consideration To The Particular
Suitability Of The Property' For Particular Uses? .
The subject properties are relatively level, have good exposure to
an inadequate roadway system, and are in close proximity to the
31
City of Kalispell and services. Significant negative impact is
expected.
'Does The Requested ZoninLr Give Reasonable Consideration To The
Character Of This District?
The properties and uses that would locate in this district are
primarily residential. This particular area is in agricultural use
near natural areas and is on the fringe of development, which
would indicate the property to be used as a low density buffer
between the urban uses and agricultural/natural areas.
Significant negative impact is expected.
Would The Proposed Zoning Conserve The Value Of The Buildings?
No Change
The proposed zoning would conserve the value of buildings
because the types of uses allowed in the proposed zone are the
same as the existing zone. No significant negative impact is
expected.
*Will The Requested Zone Change Encouraire The Most Appropriate
Use Of The Land Throughout The Jurisdiction?
The Master Plan guides development into the future. The.
requested zoning classification would not be consistent with the
/ Kalispell City -County Master Plan. The Plan identifies this area
for low density residential development.
Motion DeGrosky moved to adopt the Kalispell City -County Planning Board
and Zoning Commission's findings of fact and forward a
recommendation of denial to the Commissioners for the requested
zone change from R-1 to R-3 by Patty Shelton Trust/Mike Seaman.
Fraser seconded. On a roll call vote Fraser, Bahr, Lopp,
DeGrosky, Hodgeboom, Sanders and Kennedy voted in favor of the
motion to deny the requested zone change.
WEST Kennedy introduced the next item which was a request by Tom
EVERGREEN Sands on behalf of the Patty Shelton Trust / Mike Seaman for
MANOR / preliminary plat approval of a 148 space mobile home park on 34
PRELIMINARY acres of R-3 and proposed R-3 zoned land. The project location
PLAT is on the souteast corner of West Evergreen Drive and River Road
approximately 2000 feet west of US Highway 2. The site will be
developed utilizing Evergreen Water and Sewer District facilities,
have 2 park/open space areas, and 2 access roads (one in West
Evergreen Drive and one on River Road). The project is to be
known as West Evergreen Manor. The site is more specifically
described as part of the NW4 of Section 4, Township 28 NOrth,
Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana.
Staff Report Parsons reported that the applicant has requested that the public
hearing on the preliminary plat for West Evergreen Manor be
continued until the next planning board meeting to allow him time
to redesign the subdivision based on the existing zoning. The
32
�J
�J
staff report will be revised based on the revised preliminary plat
when submitted. Discussion followed on the applicant's request.
Public Hearing The public hearing was opened.
Motion Bahr moved to grant the request for a continuance, and continue
the public hearing until the June meeting. Fraser seconded. On
a roll call vote Sanders, Bahr, DeGrosky, Fraser, Hodgeboom and
Kennedy voted aye. The motion carried unanimously.
The next .meeting will be June 13, 1995 to be held in the City .
Chambers. Staff was directed to put this item first on the
agenda.
President Hash returned to the Board.
OLD BUSINESS Parsons gave a summary on how to rewrite findings of fact.
NEW BUSINESS The workplan for the next fiscal year needs to be done to present
to City Council.
A joint meeting or workshop session with the Council members,
County Commissioners and other planning board members was
suggested to address the issue of impact. fees. The impacts of
development and how other regions are dealing with it was
discussed at length. Staff was directed to get more information
to present to the Board, and to present the concern to the
County. Kennedy was directed to bring the matter up with
Council.
The County sign ordinance was discussed. If the sign ordinance
needs to be amended, then that should be included as a work plan
item.
ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at
11:50 p.m.
t, �k
Therese Fox Hash, President AizOeth Ontko, Recording Secretary
APPROVED: 6W
---A /�
p u, C 2 A
33