Loading...
09-12-95KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING✓ BOARD AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING SEPTEMBER 12, 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 by Vice -Chair Pam Kennedy at 7:01 p.m. Board members present were Walter Bahr, Robert Sanders, Mike Fraser, Milt Carlson, Michael Conner and Pam Kennedy. Excused absences were Fred Hodgeboom and Robert Lopp. President Therese Hash declared a conflict of interest on the first two agenda items and did not preside over the meeting during those public hearings. John Parsons, Senior Planner represented the Flathead Regional Development Office. Brian Wood, Zoning Administrator represented the City of Kalispell. There were approximately 80 people in attendance. APPROVAL OF The minutes of the August 8, 1995 meeting were approved as MINUTES submitted on a motion by Carlson, second by Conner. All members present voted aye. WEST The first public hearing item was introduced which was a EVERGREEN continuation of a request by Tom Sands on behalf of the Patty MANOR / Shelton Trust/Mike Seaman for preliminary plat approval of an MANUFACTURED amended submission on 12.08 acres of land, as a 44 space mobile HOME PARK / home park and one (1) space for a manger's residence. The PRELIMINARY project is to be known as West Evergreen Manor. The project PLAT / location is on the southeast corner of West Evergreen Drive and CONTINUATION River Road approximately 2000 feet west of US Highway 2 in the NW 4 of Section 4, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana. Staff Report Parsons gave a detailed presentation of report #FPP-95-09. In addition to the staff report, several letters were submitted to the Board from various agencies that were received after the staff report was written. The most significant effects of the proposed subdivision is the impacts on the schools and road system. A letter was received from the Evergreen School District. Two letters were received from the County Road Department, one dated September 8, which indicates upgrading for River Road and West Evergreen Drive. A letter dated September 12 indicates what those upgrades should be. These recommendations are incorporated into additional conditions of approval handed out to Board members. Based .on staff's evaluation of the proposal, it is recommended that preliminary plat be approved for West Evergreen Manor fora total of 43 space mobile home park, subject to 28 conditions of approval. Questions Board asked about the reduced number of spaces and acreage. Parsons responded that the applicant indicated that the area under West Evergreen Drive and River Road as part of the R-3 that he was basing his calculations on. The Zoning Ordinance does not permit that in the R-3 zone. Therefore, the total number of spaces allowed on the acreage is 43, rather than the proposed 45 spaces. Public Hearing The public hearing was reopened to comment on the proposed 43 space mobile home park known as West Evergreen Manor. In Favor Tom Sands, technical representative for the applicant, answered the question about the acreage. We did include the area of under the county roads, which is actually owned by the landowner. We have no problem meeting the zoning requirements for the lot sizes. We have to clarify that with the County Attorney, and upon final plat that will be taken care of. We have really don't have any problems with the conditions of approval, except I just got a copy of the last three tonight. Both River Road and West Evergreen Drive are substandard roads and need to be upgraded, but I think that something may need to be mitigated with the County Road Department to upgrade them. I think the developer may be required to upgrade part of it, but there are other subdivisions west and east of this development that may be looked at, too, as far as funding -it. To require this developer to upgrade the road all -the way from the development to LaSalle Road may be impossible because of the right of way restrictions. I think it is only a 40 foot wide County ROW road, right now. If you require 24 foot pavement, plus 8 more feet of shoulders, and 3 to 1 back slopes, it is impossible to fill all that within 40 feet. Like I say, we just received these tonight and I can't really respond to these conditions. We would like to reserve comment on these conditions. We are concerned about them, but we don't know the financial technicalities of these right now. If you have any questions about the plat, I will be happy to answer. I did bring a copy of the survey and deed we prepared on the easements. Both of those roads are 40 foot county roads. We have a deed that was prepared by the County Attorney's office that Patty Shelton Trust has signed, to be recorded. We are ready to dedicate that extra 10 feet of ROW, and it depends on what happens tonight. Mike Seaman, the applicant, agreed with everything that Tom Sands said. There being no other proponents, the public hearing was opened to those in opposition to the project. Opposition Bob Aumaugher, 359 Yeoman Ridge Road, Superintendent of -the n Evergreen School District, and I am here this evening to reaffirm �i 2 the concern we have with -the project, and the issues stated in the letter of September 6, 1995, which was read by Mr. Parsons. Jewel Henneman, 156 E. Cottonwood Drive, spoke in opposition -to the project, because of the impact on the schools, the dangerous roadways, as this development will increase both the number of school children and the traffic. Bob Henneman, 156 E. Cottonwood, said that he works in the Evergreen School system and is opposed to this proposal for the reasons stated. Wendy Kosan, 64 Meadowlark Drive, is opposed to -this project for the reasons stated. Jim Chase, 48 River Road, stated that River Road is 23 feet wide in front of my home, with no shoulder. In the winter time it is only 8-10 feet wide. If this project is to go ahead, we are going to see a tremendous impact on River Road. The severe right angle turns on the road are dangerous. Because the roads for the two projects tie together, if the trailer park is denied, does that mean all the traffic from the 1/2 acre subdivision will access onto River Road, or will it go onto West Evergreen? I am also opposed to it for the other reasons stated. i�Delphine Johnson, 50 Meadowlark Drive, spoke in opposition. Maureen McLean, 49 West Evergreen Drive, said she is opposed for the reasons previously stated, as well as the impacts to the environment and wildlife habitat in the area. The impacts to the schools will be great because a trailer court brings more children to the area. Gary McLean, 49 West Evergreen, is opposed for several reasons. Number one is safety. I have witnessed accidents in my own front yard on this road, and if those people had hit the telephone pole or the trailer parked in my front yard, there would have been some children seriously hurt. We can testify that these cars drive at tremendous speeds at 45-50 mph, even though it is posted at 25 mph. That is a joke. My children have told me about near accidents on their way to school to Evergreen. My second concern is the schools, as previously mentioned. All of my children have gone to Evergreen School. I am worried about the diminishing financial support to that institution, not only in terms of education, but the whole gamut including bands, sports and choir, etc. The third thing, is that I am a homeowner. I have lived there for 14 years, and have an investment. I believe that if you allow the -trailer court to go in there, my property values will suffer. 3 ' Christie Erickson, 44 West Evergreen, said she concurs with everything that has been said in opposition. Everyone is aware of what those roads are like. The S-turns on River Road are more like 90 degree angles. The most conservative figures we have come up with is 2525 trips per day on West Evergreen Drive. If this project were to be done, along with the other development, we are looking at a low estimate of an additional 536 daily trips, which is basically a 20% increase of traffic. That means there is a 20% bigger chance that my kids will get hit by a car. The road is inadequate. I am worried not only for my kids safety, but what about -the children in the new development, that is more of a low income type housing that will bring in younger families with children. I don't know how those kids will .get from the trailer court to the school safely. West Evergreen has the notoriety of being the only road in the valley that has a child hit every year since 1983. It is time to slow down and give the infrastructure time to expand. We need a tax base to help do that. This development will not bring in the taxes to help us catch up with the growth. I question the number of children this suggests will be deposited into the school. The estimates are .5 per house, but in fact, the local average is 3, and the national average is 2.1. Roughly, by my estimates, this development will add about 200 children to the schools. We haven't even seen the impacts from Barrett's development and others that have been approved. Slow Cdown. We are growing way -too fast in a direction that isn't 1 helping any of us. I feel raped by all of this. I feel that we were tricked into getting this sewer. We were all trying to be good citizens and not be polluting the lake, even though other outlying developments aren't made -to get sewer. The minute the sewer came in, it opened the door to developers to make a fast, big buck and left us holding the bill. I don't feel good about this. Our property values are going down. The quality of life. We didn't move to Evergreen, because we wanted 3000 cars per day go by our house. We didn't want to have people in aluminum boxes next to each other out our back door. We moved there for a little bit of country life that was close to town. Our whole quality of life has changed. I am worried about the impact on my neighbors who are on fixed incomes. It will be a matter of time before these people lose their homes, because they can't keep up with the increasing taxes on their homes. I don't know how much longer we can keep fighting. It is a game. They are trying to wear us out. Barb Goulet, 21 West Evergreen, is opposed to the project. Duane Goulet, 21 West Evergreen, testified that there are 721 mobile homes in a one mile square area. I feel that we have burdened the mobile home population in Evergreen, and I think it should go elsewhere. We have done our share. Mobile home parks do not create a lot of tax revenue, whereas 1/2 acre lots 4 where someone is buying a home will. Most of us who live there have 1/2 acre lots. The reason we live there is have a safe neighborhood to raise our kids. Vern Shufflevine, 221 Forest Drive, has concern for the safety of the children, because I work at Evergreen school. Gail Shufflevine, 221 Forest Drive, said she was opposed for the same reasons as the rest stated. Tina Brown, 27 West Evergreen, is opposed to this project. If taxes go up any more, I will be forced to sell. I have also witnessed children walking on the shoulder being pushed off because of traffic. The other day I was going the speed limit at 25 mph and a truck passed me. What if some kids were out there trying to get to school. I agree with everything else that was said. Debbie Keller, 41 Meadowlark Drive, is opposed and agrees with what everyone else has said. Brenda Neary, 64 Willow Drive, said she is opposed to the project for the reasons stated. O Larry Oursland, 54 River Road, testified that he could see where there would be a place for 50 or so individual single family lots, that would pay the same taxes as we do. But, as far as a big commercial enterprise dumping a big pile of trouble right in the middle of our neighborhood, that is obscene. Armeda Oursland, 54 River Road, said that she concurs with everything that has been said. I would also add that I resent the comment by Mr. Sands that perhaps the County chip in and help cover the conditions, which includes improvement of River Road. We are talking tax dollars, and being asked to put in more tax dollars so that they can make money. Glenda Menahan, 46 West Evergreen, agreed with everything that has been said. We are mainly concerned with the roads and the children's safety. Sue Austin, 52 West Evergreen, pointed out that this project violates the Master Plan density by double or triple of the R-3 zone. The R-3 zone that is directly across -the street has 10,000 square foot lots. The proposed lots in the trailer park are 6,000 square feet, so it is about 50% of the R-3 lot size. It appears that many of the spaces are less than 50 feet wide. The minimum lot width according to the zoning regulations for an R-3 zone is 70 feet. Zoning to the south and west is R-1, which means one home per acre. So, I believe this trailer park is not compatible 5 with -the rest of the neighborhood and I think it is an inappropriate use for this property. I would also like to submit two letters from neighbors who were unable to be at this public hearing. Mr. Nestegard is in the hospital and is 79 years old. [She read the letters and submitted them to be entered into the record.] Letter from Carlton and Nita Nestegard, 105 West Evergreen: I have been a resident of Evergreen Drive for 45 years. When we first moved here, the taxes on our home were $85 a year; now they are over $800 per year. My wife and I are on a fixed income that we get from Uncle Sam, and even though we realize that we must support the costs of schools and so on for the young families, we are finding it more and more difficult. We are afraid of more tax increases and don't know what we will do if we cannot afford to live here anymore. Sincerely, Carlton Nestegard, Nita Nestegard. Letter from Maxine McDowell, dated September 12, 1995: I am Maxine McDowell, I live at 95 West Evergreen Drive. I am opposed to the mobile home park because of the density of homes to be placed there. West Evergreen Drive is already overly impacted -- with traffic from passenger cars to heavy trucks -- I feel more traffic will lead to a much more hazardous street than it already is. Beverly O'Brien, 688 Scenic Drive, stated that she concurs with everything that has been said and is opposed to the proposal. Karen Clark, 49 River Road, is opposed to the project and agrees with what has been said. Chuck Clark, 49 River Road, is opposed and agrees with everything that has been said. Ginger Wilson, 100 Parklane Drive, is opposed to the project. Lillian Hinkley, 825 Forest Drive, agrees with all that has been said, and wanted the developers to know that we are not opposed to you as individuals. Don Nerdig, 146 Westwood Lane, spoke in opposition. Jan Jarvis, 85 West Evergreen Drive, agrees with the rest of those opposed to this. Newt Wiggin, 225 West Evergreen Drive, said he agrees with everything that has been said in opposition. 0 Molly Goss, 110 East Evergreen, is opposed and agrees with what others have said. Hearing no one else speaking in opposition, the public hearing was closed and the meeting opened to Board discussion. A letter was distributed to the Board from Pamela Neukirch in opposition, which was read into the record. Letter from Pamela J. (Veigel) Neukirch, 188 River Road: I'm writing in regards to the requests by Tom Sands on behalf of Patty Shelton Trust/Mike Seaman regarding a 44 space mobile home park on 12.08 acres and a 23 lot development on 22.02 acres. I live at 188 River Road and my concerns are the added traffic on River Road and West Evergreen Drive. These 2 roads are in disrepair and have far too much traffic as is without added traffic from a mobile home park. Not to mention the extra strain on law enforcement who don't have enough patrols to keep the speeders in line on these roads. I'm concerned about the sewage system which sounds like it is close -to being up to capacity. Who is going to have to pay for an upgraded system? The homeowners who are already paying for the sewage system that is in place now? Speaking as a homeowner and a taxpayer, my taxes have tripled because of this sewage system and the re-evaluation of the O market value on my house. I cannot afford these taxes to go up anymore. I feel the homeowners of Evergreen are paying more than their fair share. Also the Evergreen School is full. How can it be justified to develop this piece of property when it is the people who already live here who are going to end up paying to upgrade the roads, the school, the sewage system and what ever else it takes just to be able to accommodate the influx of more people in this area. Is this fair? I'm also concerned about the crime rate which usually increases as the people do, especially since I will be living across the street from this trailer park. I had my garage broken into last month while I was home. As I mentioned before law enforcement can't keep the cars from speeding in this area, how will they be able to keep up with the crime. I feel development of this piece of property at this time would not have a favorable impact on the community. I wish to be put on record as being in opposition of these 2 proposed trailer parks. John Parsons reminded the Board that a petition was submitted a few months ago regarding the zone change request, and it also noted opposition to the mobile home park. There were 500 signatures on the petition. It was submitted at the time that a 148 mobile home park was proposed, however the petition states opposition to a mobile home park. 7 Discussion Carlson asked staff to clarify the statement made by Sue Austin regarding the square footage and lot width requirements in the R-3 zone. Parsons replied that in the County R-3 zone, the minimum lot size is 10,000 square feet, with a minimum lot width of 70 feet, for a single family home. However, this is a mobile home park and only requires a 5,000 square foot lot size, and 50 foot lot width. Fraser commented that the conditions of approval require the developer to provide sidewalks on West Evergreen, but not an interior pedestrian walkway in the development. Parsons said that it is addressed in condition #23. Fraser would also like to see a requirement to widen and upgrade River Road from the development to Highway 2, as it is in dire need. I feel that the improvement of River Road from the south boundary of the project to Highway 2 is as important as the improvement of West Evergreen Drive from the project to LaSalle. Conner said he had to echo the concern about that, as I viewed the whole area out there, particularly West Evergreen. It is unfortunate that this development has to be targeted, but that is what brings these kind of things to -the forefront. He asked (\� about the parking requirements for the mobile home park. Parsons said that parking is required under the subdivision regulations, and that both these proposals will require a conditional use permit. The single family development is proposed as a cluster subdivision. Carlson referred to the letter from the County Parks Department which recommended cash in lieu. How is that addressed? Parsons said that the applicant has indicated the proper amounts, a homeowners park and common area. Carlson commented that the density was out of character with the neighborhood and he had trouble with that. Kennedy said that she appreciated the developers toning down the size of this project from 148 spaces, and do hear the concerns of the neighborhood in that it will be an impact. She questioned whether the entire burden of upgrading River Road should be put on this developer. There will be a tremendous impact on the road from the daily trips generated from this development, but to require the developer to widen the road beyond the southern boundary, plus do West Evergreen appears to be a major burden. 8 Bahr noted that every road in that area needs improvement and upgrade. Where do you draw the line for a particular subdivision? Fraser wanted to add a condition #29 to read: "Improve River Road from the south boundary of the development south to Highway 2 with a total width of 24 feet, two 4 foot shoulders not to exceed a safety slope of 3 to 1 in accordance with the Flathead County Road and Bridge Department requirements." The Board could not support this addition, as it would seem to be an onerous burden on the developer. The Board was empathetic to the Evergreen School District's concerns stated in their letter. The impacts to the schools was discussed, in light of the recent legislation concerning schools, which states that a subdivision cannot be denied based solely on impacts to schools. It must be included with other cumulative impacts. Bahr commented that he has empathy for the neighbors who live in the Evergreen area. Unfortunately, there will be growth, and we all have to take care of it. There is a need for affordable housing. This is one of the ways it can be done. Motion Bahr moved to adopt staff report #FPP-95-09 as findings of fact, and recommend the County Commissioners approve the preliminary plat for West Evergreen Manor with the conditions 1-28 as set forth in the report. Sanders seconded. Further discussion followed on the motion. Conner expressed his concern with the density of the development from a safety standpoint with the road systems and the schools. I wish there was a way to get resolution so that we could feel more comfortable about development that goes forward. We can't stop development. I have concerns from the legal view. It may meet the legal intent of the zoning regulations on one side, but on the other side what is the cumulative effect of what is going on. Fraser commented that the developer has brought forward a plan that meets the requirements of the comprehensive plan, meets the requirements of the zoning, and -the conditions ensure that it will. I would like to see the conditions go further. But when an individual purchases a piece of property that is zoned and pursues the development in accordance with the zone, then we have an obligation to pass that on -to the governing bodies with a favorable recommendation. Carlson understood the concern about that. Taking into account the character of the neighborhood, you do not have to go the 9 maximum allowed under the zoning. Taking into consideration what is around there, you don't have to push it to the limit on every request that comes in. I have a problem with this amended proposition. On a roll call vote Bahr, Sanders, Fraser and Kennedy voted aye. Conner and Carlson voted nay. The motion carried on a 4-2 vote to recommend approval for -the preliminary plat for West Evergreen Manor Manufactured Home Park subject to 28 conditions. WEST The next item was introduced on a request by Tom Sands on EVERGREEN behalf of the Patty Shelton Trust/Mike Seaman for preliminary plat ESTATES / approval on 22.02 acres of land as a 23 lot single family cluster PRELIMINARY development, to be known as West Evergreen Estates. The project PLAT is located on the east side of River Road approximately 500 feet south of West Evergreen Drive (immediately south of West Evergreen Manor) in the NW4 of Section 4, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana. Staff Report Parsons gave a detailed presentation of report #FPP-95-16, which evaluated the proposal in accordance with the necessary criteria. The applicant is proposing 23 lots on 22 acres. The R-1 zone will only allow 22 lots. Upon further investigation, it appears there is only 21 acres for the same reason encountered with the acreage CJcalculations for the mobile home park. Therefore, staff recommended that the preliminary plat for West Evergreen Estates be approved for a 21-lot residential subdivision subject to 24 conditions, which includes the three additional conditions of approval submitted at the meeting. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the 21-lot single family residential subdivision to be known as West Evergreen Estates. In Favor Tom Sands, technical representative for the applicant, just wanted to reiterate the same comments made for West Evergreen Manor. They haven't had a chance to look at the three additional conditions, and will work it out later. As a redesign, we have done our best to make sure that this development is compatible with areas to the east and west and compatible with the zone. Mike Seaman, the applicant, agreed with Tom's testimony and was in favor of the proposed subdivision. There being no other proponents, the public hearing was opened to opponents of the proposed development. Opposition Jewel Henneman, 156 East Cottonwood Drive, is opposed to this development. I am feeling pretty emotional. The quality of our 10 lives will be so severely impacted. I know from a legal standpoint there is no reason to deny this. I understand and appreciate the position you are in. Somewhere, someday, we have to put an end to this. This valley is being decimated, it is being destroyed. Somebody with some foresight has got to step forward and have the courage to put an end to what we have been doing to this area. Bob Henneman, 156 East Cottonwood Drive, said that I have felt that your job, to my understanding, is to foresee and look to the future of this valley. Even though there are legal requirements that ask you to legally consider something, it is my opinion that you should use your judgement to advise the Commissioners to what you feel is your best estimate as a representative of the valley. If you, in any way feel, -that there is some kind of happening that is not going to be what you would like to see, you have a moral obligation to state that. Wendy Kosan, 64 Meadowlark Drive, asked for clarification on the statement made that the zoning is R-1 for one acre lots, but that the proposal is for 1/2 acre lots? Parsons addressed the question. He said that under the provisions of the zoning regulations, there is a cluster provision. A cluster provision allows a developer to develop a piece of property to the maximum density permitted under the zone. The maximum density permitted under the R-1 zone is one unit per acre. The minimum lot size in a cluster subdivision is 1/2 acre. Therefore, on this 21 acres, 21 units can be built on a minimum lot size of 1/2 acre, with the remaining acreage being open space, roads and etc. Ms. Kosan wanted to know if these two subdivisions were for rentals, and who was paying the taxes? Parsons answered that the mobile home park is for rental spaces, only. They are not for sale. West Evergreen Estates, which is the R-1 cluster subdivision, is a "For Sale" subdivision. Wendy Kosan went on to testify that the impacts to the schools of 70% low income people. This trailer court and subdivision will lower our the figure to 80% low income people. I am definitely opposed to both subdivisions. Jim Chase, 48 River Road, stated that when he came in this evening, he didn't expect the trailer court to be approved, so I had good feelings about the subdivision, because things have to develop. But now, with a 44 space -trailer court, and the 23 lot subdivision, it will put 67 plus families on River Road, which is one of the main arteries for this development. River Road won't 11 stand the traffic. You people are in a bad position. You've got to say 'yes', I guess. But, we've got a mess in this town, we've got a mess in this valley. The roads are inadequate. What you are doing is preposterous. Delphine Johnson, 50 Meadowlark Drive, was opposed to this development. Christie Erickson, 44 West Evergreen Drive, said that she was not particularly opposed to this development, as I would like to see the whole thing developed in this manner, but based on what you recommended, I am opposed to this. First of all, I am begging you people to make sure that the developer pays for these roads. The estimate that came in for fixing the West Evergreen hill was over $22,000, and that's a deal. That $22,000 is coming out of our pockets. If this development goes the way it is presented tonight, we end up having to pay for that impact. Not only through taxes, not only for schools and roads, but sewer, and down the road the loss of property values. There are many people living there now who are on the verge of being homeless. I do believe in trailer development, but as was pointed out, we have over 700 trailers in Evergreen, now. It is disproportionate in the valley. We have become the trailer receptacle for the Flathead Valley. The Chair reminded Ms. Erickson that the public hearing was for the 21 cluster subdivision. Christie responded that they are still trailers on 1/2 acre lots. Even a double wide mobile home on a foundation does not pay the same amount of taxes. Who polices the covenants? How long are the parks going to remain parks? The homeowners park in Kings Way is gone, the park in Glacier Village Greens has gone commercial and is no longer a park. Someone has made money on it. How long do these open spaces remain open spaces and when do they revert back to the Seamans to make them more money? East Evergreen was provided with a walkway, but every year, -the yellow line has encroached further and further, and that sidewalk has gotten littler and littler. You get wide, fancy roads, and the cars just go faster and faster. I don't believe that widening the road is going to address the problem. Barb Goulet, 41 West Evergreen, was also in favor of this project, because it was on 1/2 acre lots and the density was less than the mobile home park. But, it is getting down to where they are putting more and more traffic on the roads. It is dangerous for kids on bikes, and cars are always passing me, going way over the speed limit. There are never enough police to watch any of this traffic. Another development is just going to bring more and more traffic, so I am opposed to this one. 12 C� Duane Goulet, 41 West Evergreen Drive, stated that he thinks it is ludicrous to require the developer to just improve the road at his boundaries. Do you just drop the cars in right there? They have to get there somehow, they have got to go through the S- curves. That has to be redone. If these people are going to be there, it won't have to be done. If they are there, it has to be done. It doesn't make sense -to have a nice wide road dump into a little road. Also, I resent Mr. Bahr saying that "this valley is growing, we have to accept it." Well, that's what they said in California. Everyone is moving here because they can't stand it there. Where do we go? Vern Shufflevine, 221 Forest Drive, is opposed to this project. Gail Shufflevine, 221 Forest Drive, said she is opposed to all the developments. Chuck Clark, 49 River Road, said he is opposed -to all of them. Larry Oursland, 54 River Road, said there are only two kinds of growth that I know of. There is the kind that makes me real happy I didn't end up 12 feet tall, and there is the kind that makes me think serious about getting radiation and- chemotherapy. In my opinion, the Flathead Valley reached its maximum population that it can reasonably and sanely handle about 20,000 people ago. From what I hear, there are 175 more coming every month. I think this is a sad, shameful, tragic thing that is being allowed to happen here. The one thing we definitely don't need to be figuring out ways to make money off this unfortunate situation. I also think it is a very stupid thing, because of what has happened to California, Colorado, and all the places with ski resorts and such. We ought to know better. Evergreen is an older, well established, well developed community that didn't just spring up over night. We have acquired a certain charm, character and quality of life that is very important, and is a real part of the value of our property. We don't intend to give this up. Armeda Oursland, 54 River Road, concurred with everything that has been said. I find the whole thing ironic. In Denver, Colorado they are paying thousands of dollars to undue the mess that they have gotten themselves into, with this irresponsible, overnight development. Money talks, I realize that. I would like to thank Mr. Conner and Mr. Carlson for their sensitivity and insight into this. Glenda Minnehan, 46 West the whole thing now. I I didn't think the mobile 13 Evergreen Drive, said she is opposed -to wasn't opposed to this development, but home park would be approved. We were in favor of the houses on 1/2 acre lots. But, it is still going to be an awful lot of people. Sue Austin, West Evergreen, said she is appalled at what happened. If you consider the three types of people who live in Evergreen, you have the working people, senior citizens who are on fixed incomes, and low income. We do not have any wealthy people living there, who are paying taxes on $100,000 homes. These are the people who are going to pick up the tab for this type of development. What you have done is condemn -these people. They will have to move out as these new people are moving in, because they will not be able to afford to stay in their own homes. I would ask for another condition of approval if you do choose to approve this. That you fence the entire project, trailer court included, with a 6 foot chain link fence as a safety feature to keep the children inside the project, so they don't go sneaking through this landscape buffer and onto the dangerous road. Plus, the school yard is adjacent to it, and it would save the school from vandalism. I would also request that there be only Class A mobile homes in the development. Beverly O'Brien, 688 Scenic Drive, said that she was less opposed to this development, but the cumulative impacts of the maximum density on every possible zoned development, is overwhelming. So, I am opposed. I would request that on the condition for l�J) widening the roads, to not make them shoulders, because shoulders tend to be driven on. To take care of the safety of the kids, I would suggest that it be a sidewalk/bike path, at least on one side. And have some designated crossings for people to come to a complete stop. If we have to live with this, let's get some conditions that make some sense, and maybe we can live it. Darlene Jump, spoke in opposition to the project. Lois Christianson, 138 Marguerite, said that she is one of the senior citizens whose taxes doubled this year, but my income didn't, and is opposed to both developments. Eileen Maycumber, 227 Highway 2 East, was opposed to both proposals. Caroline Jacobs, 234 East Evergreen, felt that things are being done too fast. There are too many questions and unhappiness on both sides. Why don't we slow down and think about it? Art Olson, Willow Drive, stated that he has lived in Evergreen for over 40 years. I have seen development come and go. I am opposed to these developments because of the impacts -to the roads, schools and safety of the kids. 14 Richard Dachman, 130 Sleepy Hollow, said I am definitely opposed -to it. I am one of those senior citizens who is on a fixed income. Jewel Henneman, 156 East Cottonwood, testified that the sewer system we have in Evergreen is not really finished, yet. We are already experiencing some problems from the sewer system. We are experiencing powerful sewer odors in our community. We can't even have a picnic in our backyard, because it is like you are standing over an open sewer pit. There are already problems with the new sewer system. Christie Erickson, stated that by allowing this type of development -that is not contributing as many tax dollars as the beautiful developments that are happening in School District 5, it is forcing us to sell our homes. There will not be parents supporting the school system, because those who live there are working people who often have 2 or 3 jobs. Down the road, Evergreen is going to hurt the whole community if you continue to let this kind of growth occur. Armeda Oursland, commented that it was said there is a real need for low income housing. This meeting was advertised in the paper. Where are all these people? If it is so terrible trying to find housing, where are they to testify? There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed and it was opened to Board deliberation. Discussion Parsons noted that the same letters received for West Evergreen Manor, also pertain to West Evergreen Estates. Conner asked staff to clarify requirements for single wide trailers. Parsons explained that the R-1 zoning district only permits Class A manufactured homes, which is customarily considered a double wide. Kennedy confirmed that this Board cannot require designated crossings or indicate that a full stop be there. It would need to be reviewed and ordered in by -the Sheriff's Department, County Commissioners, and County Road Department. Parsons clarified for the public that the conditions of approval need to be complied with prior to final plat. The requirement for putting double wide trailers on individual lots cannot be met prior to final plat. It is something that is met after final plat in development of individual parcels. Fraser noted that the previous subdivision, West Evergreen Manor, accesses solely on West Evergreen Drive. The proposal now is -to 15 move Evergreen Manor back onto River Road, and I think it is very appropriate to consider widening of River Road from the southern boundary of West Evergreen Estates to Highway 2, with 24 foot of paving and 2 four shoulders, with the slope to be 3 to 1 in accordance with the Flathead County Road and Bridge Department requirements. Fraser commented that the testimony states that property values will be going down at the same time that taxes are going up, and that is not consistent. Carlson again expressed his concern about the development going to the maximum density allowed. Conner said he would have been more accepting of this proposal with the 1/2 acre lot sizes. The density of the development is more in keeping with the character of the area. But, the cumulative effects of this whole area, the impact to the road systems, the safety is something that really bothers me. I am hoping that the community, the developer, and the County can get together and take a look at the entire area as far as the impacts is concerned. This is going to add a lot of traffic to the volume already out there. Kennedy agreed that any development will have impact to the schools, the road systems, to the community at large. This is an added burden in Evergreen with it being the 43 units just approved, plus this 21 units. It certainly not the density that would have been there had the zone been changed, which would have allowed 148 units. I do appreciate that the developers went back to the table and came forward with something that could blend into the area as best as possible. I know how the community feels about mobile home parks and trailers, in general. I do believe there is a need for them in our area, and places for them to be. We can't say that they will be there or here. It is the developer that comes forward with a proposal. We are restricted by state law, and if -the developer is meeting all the requirements, we cannot be arbitrary about it and just turn them down, because it is in our heart. All of us feel the impacts of growth in our community. We just hope that when we review them, the requirements will bring quality development into Flathead Valley. I hope the 24 conditions on this one, will bring forward a quality development into the Evergreen area. Motion Fraser moved to accept report #FPP-95-16 as findings of fact, and recommend that preliminary plat for West Evergreen Estates be approved subject to the 24 conditions submitted by staff, with an additional condition #25 to states "To improve River Road from -the south corner of West Evergreen Estates to Highway 2 with a total r� of 24 feet of paving and two 4 foot shoulders, not to exceed a 16 safety slope of 3 to 1, in accordance with the Flathead County Road and Bridge Department requirements." The motion failed for lack of a second. The request by a member of public for a security fence was discussed, and decided that it would not be added as a condition. Motion Bahr moved to adopt report #FPP-95-16, and recommend to the County Commissioners approval of the preliminary plat for West Evergreen Estates, with the 24 conditions as recommended by staff. Sanders seconded. On a roll call vote Bahr, Sanders and Kennedy voted aye. Conner, Carlson and Fraser voted no. The vote was tied at 3-3. Conner said that he was bothered that we did not approve this proposal and we approved the trailer court subdivision. I think we are dealing with the cumulative effects of the safety out there. It is not that I don't feel that the criteria for a stand alone subdivision has not been adequately addressed, it is a moral issue with me. Further discussion followed. The Board agreed to send a tie vote to the Commissioners. �) The meeting was turned over to President Hash for the remainder f of the public hearings. MONTESSORI Hash introduced a request by Steven and Sara Welder for a SCHOOL / Conditional Use Permit in the RA-1 zone to allow an addition to a CONDITIONAL classroom at the existing Montessori School located at 5 Park Hill USE PERMIT Road. Construction would include a 170 square foot footprint in a 2-story addition to the existing structure. The property is more particularly described as Lots 3 and 4 of Block 2, Willis Addition in Kalispell. Hash announced that her children attend Montessori School. The Board determined that it was not a conflict of interest. Staff Report Parsons presented an overview of report #KCU-95-04. The request was evaluated in accordance with the necessary criteria and staff recommended three conditions of approval. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the conditional use permit. In Favor Terry Welder, 11 Park Hill Road, the applicant, spoke in favor. The addition is insignificant, and he wanted to assure the Board that they are very sensitive to the neighborhood. The addition is a greenhouse for enhancement of the science classroom. We 17 1 i have no intention of expanding. We will not be adding any students and no extra traffic. Kim Larson, technical assistant, wanted -to mention that on the lower floor of the expansion area, they have a changing area in the foyer, where -there is congestion. What they are trying to do is move the changing area off the classrooms, so it is not in the entrance corridor. So, in a sense they are relieving some congestion on that first floor. There was no other speakers in favor of the proposal. No one spoke in opposition. The public hearing was closed and it was opened to Board discussion. Motion Fraser moved to adopt report #KCU-95-04 as findings of fact and recommend granting the conditional use permit with the recommendations contained therein. Bahr seconded. On a roll call vote Bahr, Sanders, Kennedy, Fraser, Conner, Carlson and Hash voted aye. The motion carried unanimously. GRAHAM ZONE Next, Hash introduced a request by Lawrence D. Graham, et al, CHANGE / for a change in zone from SAG-10 (Suburban Agriculture, 10 acre SAG-10 TO minimum lot size) to SAG-5 (Suburban Agriculture, 5 acre minimum SAG-5 lot size) as defined by the Flathead County Zoning Regulations. i The properties total approximately 40 acres located along -the west side of Ezy Drive on the south side of East Reserve Drive, in the NE4 of Section 34, Township 29 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana. Staff Report Parsons presented report #FZC-95-09. Five (5) properties with a combined acreage of approximately 40 acres is being proposed for the rezone. There are two issues that may arise. One is that the northern most parcel of land is almost entirely within the 100 year floodplain. The other issue is that technically, each of -the parcels are less than 10 acres. However, the County is deeding back many of its roads to the property owners and accepting easements in return. In doing that, the ROW that had been excluded from the lot area can now be included in the area of the parcels, in the Agricultural zones, only. To staff's understanding, this has not been done, yet. The request was reviewed in accordance with the statutory criteria for a zone change, and based on those findings, staff recommended the zone change be granted from SAG-10 to SAG-5. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the zone change. In Favor Doug Cusick, 550 Ezy Drive, speaking on behalf of Larry Graham and the other three property owners that are involved in this request for a zone change. It has been their plan for quite some C -J 18 time to split our land to supplement our retirement income, and to help our children with their housing needs. The properties in question are basically too small to farm, but too large to take care of without large farm equipment. By dividing the lots, it will clean up an area that is covered with brush and dry grass. During fire season it will provide a water supply for fire protection. We felt that 5 acre parcels would not be concentrated. All buildings involved would be essentially the same. Any new buildings would be built to city building codes. Tom Weaver, 747 East Reserve, stated that he has no problem with his neighbors splitting their land. I did that -to mine a long time ago. The only concern I have, is that I have a private airstrip on the piece of property north of this area, just so people will be aware that I approach and land over the property in question. Harold Lawson, 450 White Birch Lane, spoke in favor of the zone change. Greg Cusick, 434 Ezy Drive, said he is also in favor. Gary Gustufson, 320 Harrison Blvd., said he has lived next to this property for over 20 years. It has always been my understanding that it would be divided, which is what all the properties in that area are. Anything smaller than 5 acres, I wouldn't agree with, but there are 5's and 10's all around the area. Linda Cusick, 1405 4th Ave. West, spoke in favor of the zone change. Cara Boca, 212 7-th Ave East, said she was in favor. There were no other speakers in favor of the zone change. No one spoke in opposition. The public hearing was closed and it was opened to Board deliberation. Discussion Kennedy questioned whether the SAG-5 was a spot zone, as there is no other SAG-5 in the area. Parsons replied that it is in conformance with the Master Plan, and -there is R-1 and R-2 zones nearby, so SAG-5 would serve as a buffer to the SAG-10. It will probably set a precedence for future zone changes, however it is not an undesireable precedent. Motion Kennedy moved to adopt the findings of fact in report #FZC-95-09 and to recommend approval of the Graham zone change from SAG- 10 to SAG-5. Bahr seconded. On a roll call vote all members present voted aye. The motion carried unanimously. MARSHALL The next item was introduced which was a request by -the City of ZONE CHANGE / Kalispell on behalf of Jon and Jean Marshall for annexation to the 0 19 R-4 (COUNTY) City of Kalispell with an initial zoning classification of RA-1, Low TO RA-1 (CITY) Density Multi -Family Residential. The parcel contains approximately 6,000 square feet located approximately 150 feet east of 5-th Avenue East, 400 Feet south of 18th Street East. Staff Report Parsons presented an overview of report #KA-95-9, and recommended the requested RA-1 zone classification be granted upon annexation. Public Hearing Jon Marshall, 21128 East Shore, Bigfork, the property owner/applicant, spoke in favor of the requested zone upon annexation. It just makes sense for that piece of property, as it is adjacent to similar properties in the area. There being no further testimony either in favor or in opposition to the requested zone change, the public hearing was closed and it was opened to Board discussion. Motion Fraser moved to adopt report #KA-95-9 as findings of fact, and forward a favorable recommendation to City Council for the City zone request of the Marshall Addition No. 269 with an initial zoning of RA-1. Kennedy seconded. On a roll call vote all members present voted aye. The motion carried 7-0 in favor. DYE ZONE Hash introduced the next public hearing on a request by William CHANGE / and Barbara Dye and Benchmark Homes for a change in zone from R-3 TO R-5 R-3 (Urban Single Family Residential) to R-5 (Residential/Professional Office) on approximately 0.87 acres. The properties are located on the northwest corner of Liberty Street and Meridian Road, more particularly described as Lots 5, 6, 7, and the east 43 feet of Lot 9, Block 1, Adams Addition in the City of Kalispell. Staff Report Parsons presented report #KZC-95-05. The request was evaluated in accordance with the necessary statutory criteria and staff recommended that the zone be changed from R-3 to R-5. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the requested zone change. In Favor Tim Stresnick of Benchmark Homes, 185 Cheviot Loop, Kalispell, spoke in favor of the zone change. The reason we are requesting the zone change is that we would like to purchase this residence and use it for our business. Our business is the designing and building of custom homes and small commercial projects. We also have a real estate company. The R-5 zone will allow us to operate our businesses, which we feel are very consistent with what is happening on North Meridian Road. With the widening to four - lanes we feel it would be the best and appropriate use would be as a business use. We would like to keep the architectural look. 20 �1 We love it and think it is beautiful and do not want to change that, because it will be a great look for our building business. We want to paint, put a new roof on it, landscape and refurbish it. Barbara Dye, 1060 North Meridian, stated that she was in favor of the zone change, and felt the plan would put the property to good use. Bill Dye, 1060 North Meridian, said he was in favor of the zone change request. Mark Wedis, architect with Benchmark Homes, explained that their company does not operate and store heavy equipment. This will be a clean business use in the neighborhood. We want to maintain the architectural integrity of the building. Robert Putnam, 1080 North Meridian, which is two houses north of this property, said I am in favor of this, because every year you can see Meridian Road has two or three more businesses going in there. It is not a desirable residential place anymore. When we built out there in 1947, it was a nice quiet country road. Now, every morning, the logging trucks shift coming into that STOP sign, and start again, so it really bothers us every morning. You can't even get onto North Meridian until after 9 a.m. There were no other proponents. The public hearing was opened to those opposed. Opposition Robert Elwood, 209 Rosewood, said he was not opposed, but had concern that there would be a big parking lot next to his property that would impact the residential area. We like the area the way it is now. It is a residential area, and we are concerned that this will decrease -the value of our property. He submitted a letter from his neighbor who also had the same concerns to the zone change, as follows: Steve Cislo, 215 Rosewood Drive: I oppose the zone change because it would reduce the value of my property. There being no further opponents, the public hearing was closed and the meeting opened to Board discussion. Discussion Fraser commented that there are other more intensive zones in the area, such as RA-1 and B-1, which allows much more intensive uses. The R-5 is a residential zone and seems rather innocuous in this particular area. 21 Kennedy asked when the right of way for the widening of North Meridian would be addressed? Parsons responded that would be done with negotiations between the City, the State and private property owners. We are considering the ROW to be 80 feet, and any development that occurs along Meridian Road is being requested to establish an additional setback for their buildings and parking areas -to allow for landscaping. Kennedy asked how the additional parking requirements will be addressed? Parsons responded that this application is for a zone change to R-5, therefore any use allowed in the R-5 zone can go in there. When the conversion of the property from residential to commercial occurs, it has go -through the Site Plan Review Committee and obtain a building permit. It would not come to a public hearing unless the use is required to have a conditional use permit. Parsons went on to explain that when the North Meridian Plan was being developed, this area was considered for RA-3 zoning, which is a very intensive residential zone. We felt that the R-5 request was a better use of the property than an RA-3. Hash remarked that North Meridian is being impacted severely by the development that is occurring. Any zone change that would in some fashion, put a lid on a higher intensive use, I would be supportive of. I feel that a low intensity commercial use would be favorable over another apartment complex. You will not get the traffic and numbers of bodies that you would with a multi -family complex, as well as preserving the beautiful house. Motion Kennedy moved to adopt report #KZC-95-05 as findings of fact and recommend the zone be changed as requested from R-3 to R-5. Fraser seconded. On a roll call vote all members present voted aye. The motion carried on a 7-0 vote in favor. HAGERMAN Hash introduced a request by Muriel Hagerman, et al, for a change ZONE CHANGE / in zone from RA-1 (Low Density Residential Apartment) to RA-3 RA-1 TO RA-3 (Residential Apartment/Office). The properties are approximately 4.8 acres and are generally located on the south side of 18th Street West and on the west side of Airport Road, with access to both 18th Street West and Airport Road, and are more particularly described in "Exhibit A" of report #KZC-95-04. Staff Report Parsons presented an overview of report #KZC-95-04. The requested zone change from RA-1 to RA-3 meets all the necessary criteria, and staff recommended approval. 22 Public Hearing The public hearing was opened. In Favor Brian Wood, Zoning Administrator, represented the Hagermans and the City of Kalispell. The City is one of the applicants as the owner of the Courtyard Apartments. The emphasis behind the Hagermans applying for this zone change is primarily the changing character of the neighborhood down there. The traffic has increased dramatically on Airport Road and 18th Street. A lot of people are using Airport Road as a bypass to avoid traffic on Hwy 93. The City has adopted a neighborhood plan for the airport, and by doing so, the City plans -to expand and improve the airport, and expand commercial/industrial uses in that neighborhood. The whole neighborhood got together to request the rezone. Parsons pointed out that there is one parcel left out of the rezone request, which is a mobile home park. There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed and the meeting opened to Board discussion. Discussion Hash asked staff to read through the list of allowed and permitted uses in the RA-3 zone. Motion Kennedy moved to adopt FRDO staff report #KZC-95-04 as findings 0 of fact, and forward a favorable recommendation for the zone change request from RA-1 to RA-3. Bahr seconded. On a roll call vote all members present voted in favor. The motion carried 7-0. TEXT Hash introduced a request by -the City of Kalispell for a Zoning AMENDMENT / Ordinance text amendment to change Section 27.26.050(22) Grocery Supermarket or Supermarket parking requirements from one (1) parking space Parking & per 100 feet of public floor area plus one (1) space per 200 square Cluster feet of storage and office to 1 parking space per 250 feet of gross Development floor area. In addition, changing Section 27.35.030(1) from requiring a minimum of two (2) acres (21,300 square feet in the Redevelopment Area) before a cluster development could be applied for to 21,000 square feet minimum to begin a cluster development. Staff Report Parsons presented staff's request to amend the zoning ordinance text as proposed in FRDO report #KZTA-95-3, to change the ratio for grocery store parking requirements and reduce the minimum size for a cluster development in an urban setting. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened. There was no one to speak either in favor or in opposition to the text amendments. The public hearing was closed. Discussion The Board discussed the reasons and ramifications of the two proposed text amendments. 23 r~ Brian Wood relayed information regarding parking requirements for supermarkets, stating that Tidyman's engineers based their needs on 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. This equates to 1 space per 250 square feet as proposed for the text amendment. The Board agreed that even during peak seasons, -the parking at Ticyman's is adequate. The concept of a cluster development is -to provide more green space and open areas. The Board concurred with that and were favorable to the zoning ordinance text amendments as proposed. Motion Carlson moved that the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance text be amended as proposed in report #KZTA-95-3, as follows: Chapter 27.26 Off Street Parking. Section 27.26.050(22). Grocery and supermarkets: 1 space per 250 square feet of gross floor area. Chapter 27.35 Cluster Developments - Dwellings. Section 27.35.030(l). Minimum area of the development shall be not less than 21,000 square feet. Kennedy seconded the motion. On a roll call vote Sanders, Bahr, Carlson, Conner, Kennedy, Fraser and Hash voted aye. Motion carried unanimously. OLD BUSINESS Parsons announced that there was nothing on the agenda for the October meeting. He suggested the Board hold a workshop at -the regular October meeting to discuss the revised subdivision regulations. The Board requested that staff also schedule a discussion of impact fees. NEW BUSINESS The October meeting will be held on Thursday, October 12th, due to -the Columbus Day holiday. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 P.M.f(, �5- Therese Fox Hash, President E za th Ontko, Recording Secretary I i � 24