11-14-95KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING
NOVEMBER 14, 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 7:05
p.m. by President Therese Hash. Board members present were Milt
Carlson, Walter Bahr, Robert Sanders, Fred Hodgeboom, Bob Lopp,
Pam Kennedy, Mike Fraser and Therese Hash. Mike Conner was
absent (excused). John Parsons, Senior Planner represented the
Flathead Regional Development Office. Brian Wood, Zoning
Administrator, represented the City of Kalispell. There were
approximately 12 people in the audience.
APPROVAL OF The minutes of the September 12, 1995 meeting were approved as
MINUTES submitted on a motion by Bahr, second by Carlson. All members
present voted aye.
TETON TERRACE Hash introduced a request by the City of Kalispell for Preliminary
PRELIMINARY Plat approval and a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Cluster
PLAT & Subdivision. The project is to be known as Teton Terrace and will
CONDITIONAL contain 26 townhouse lots. The project will utilize a two -unit and
USE PERMIT three -unit construction design intended for single family
ownership. There will be four buildings constructed with the 3-
unit design and seven buildings constructed using the 2-unit
design. Access would be from Hawthorne Avenue to Teton Court
and Iris Court; the project would be connected to City water and
sewer.
Mike Fraser declared a conflict of interest and excused himself
from the Board on this matter.
Staff Report Parsons gave a detailed presentation of Preliminary Plat report
#KPP-95-04, and Conditional Use report #KCU-95-05. Based on
evaluation of the proposal in accordance with the necessary
review criteria, staff recommended approval of the conditional use
permit and preliminary plat for Teton Terrace, subject to 16
conditions. Two letters were received, one from the Flathead
County Superintendent of Schools, and one from the Kalispell
School District, which were submitted to Board members. Both
letters indicate that the schools are overcrowded at various levels.
Handouts were submitted showing elevations of the townhomes, and
a letter from Jerry Begg, adjoining property owner, stating his
support of the project.
Questions Hash questioned the cash in lieu of parkland fees. Parsons
explained that it was calculated to be 11% of of the market value
of $140,000, which equals $15,400.
Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the project.
In Favor Susan Moyer, representing the City of Kalispell, spoke in favor of
this project. I have been before this Board with the South
Woodland project, which is the other half of a 44-unit home
ownership project the City of Kalispell is actively involved with,
and for which we have won a million dollars in grants to help to
get the working class people into home ownership. I speak in
favor of this, not only because it is my project, but there is a
reduction in density from the previous plat known as Esperanza.
It is much more aesthetically pleasing. We intend to do a great
deal of landscaping with clumps of trees and berming. What we
want is a community feel. When we first went before the Kalispell
Site Review Committee, we did not want to punch this street
through, as it is shown, as there are two streets immediately to
the south of what will be Teton Avenue, that will connect with the
Begg property. However, we bowed to the wishes of the Site
Reveiw Committee. What we are after here is a quality subdivision
that remains affordable to the people that are the backbone of our
community, the single parents, young couples starting out. These
are starter homes. When the school district complains about the
impacts to the schools, all I can say is it will impact less than the
original plat as Esperanza, because we have reduced the number
of lots.
I am shocked at the recommendation for the payment of cash in
lieu of parkland. I had a long discussion with Mike Baker. He
did not want to see a park incorporated into this project that the
City would be responsible for, as there are tennis courts, and
parks in the vicinity. It was our wish, as the developer of the
project, to put the tot playground in there. I have entered into
this project with the idea of $4,00045,000 for the payment in lieu.
We are providing sidewalks on both sides, curbs and gutters,
street lights. This is a heavy impact. I think we have gone
overboard. We didn't have to even consider the tot lot. Again,
I argue that this project has been impacted by the fact that we
were denied our high density zone change on South Woodland. We
have scrambled to take that impact, which cost $530,000 by being
driven to a second site to do the remaining units. Every dollar
that the City spends on this project, impacts the percentage of
income that people will be able to qualify for. When you are
dealing with amortization tables, $500-$1,000 makes a difference in
what people can afford.
I take you back to The Courtyard, that the City did as its first
major housing undertaking. All I can do is assure you that we
will have an equally quality development. This is targeted to low
income working people. Every dollar I can save on it allows me
to get somebody that much lower down the income scale into home
ownership.
14
Doug Kaufman, Thomas, Dean & Hoskins, representing the
1 developer, the City of Kalispell, addressed the cash in lieu of
parkland, as well. By definition, I understand that cash in lieu
of parkland is calculated on the lot acreage, only, excluding roads
and common area. If we take the approximate lot area at 1.5
acres, which would be at an appraised value of roughly $52,500.
Therefore, 11% of that amount is about $5,775. We feel that this
amount for cash in lieu is substantially more in keeping with the
entire project.
There were no other proponents for the project. The public
hearing was opened to opposition. No one spoke in opposition to
the proposal. The public comment portion was closed and the
hearing opened to Board deliberation.
Discussion Lopp asked where the storm water goes once it leaves this
property? The drainage plan was explained. He asked what the
rationale was for the 50' ROW. This is a City project and ought
to be meeting all the standards the City requires, in the Kalispell
Subdivision Regulations, which will be discussed after the meeting.
The problem that this creates, is that when Mr. Begg's property
comes before us for a development proposal, we can't require him
to put 60' ROW in, because the City has a 50' ROW. How do you
justify that?
Parsons replied that it was justified by the City, based on the
�) concept that there are two other streets accessing Hawthorn
Avenue to the Begg property. When this project first came in, it
was considered that Teton Avenue be a cul-de-sac, and not go
through, at all. The City was willing to grant the 50' ROW to get
the street through to the west.
Lopp had a real problem with that, because we require the private
developer to go 60', which is required in the subdivision
regulations. How can the City have only 50' ROW in their own
subdivisions? I have a problem being in favor of this proposal,
even though it is well planned and has wonderful features, but
when we do not require of ourselves that which we require from
the private sector, I have a real problem.
The Board asked Mr. Wood to address the issue.
Wood said that Parsons summed it up very well. It was a decision
that was endorsed by the City Engineer. It was discussed, at
length, at the Site Review, with the full understanding that Mr.
Begg would probably request, and expect, a variance.
Parsons said that the other option is having the street be a cul-
de-sac, which could be a lesser ROW, because they are not
intended to create through traffic. Cul-de-sacs create a
�1 3
neighborhood environment, and the only traffic expected would be
the residents.
Lopp asked if the change was due to economic reasons? Or was
it due to design constraints for the number of housing units?
Parsons stated that Esperanza had a 60' ROW for 19 lots, with 38
units. I wish Bob Babb was here, but he is not. I don't think
there is an adequate answer to your question.
Wood pointed out that the loop road in the Esperanza Subdivision
was less than 60 feet.
Parsons reminded the Board that the road for Esperanza came in
at Teton Avenue and stubbed out at the Begg property, as it does
for this subdivision. It also had an interior loop road, Iris Court,
which was required to be 50 feet, as it was not anticipated to
carry through traffic. It was required to be stubbed out at a 40'
ROW to the north.
Carlson commented -that since Teton and Yellowstone are 50' and
go into Hawthorn, that as subsequent development goes to the
west, the main access will be on 60' ROW to Two Mile and Liberty.
Parsons explained that primarily for the development of the Begg
property, you are looking at the two roads off Hawthorn, plus
Teton, and then Two Mile Drive. There are plenty of accesses
there if one was to be eliminated or a reduction in the ROW. It
wouldn't be a great impact, other than when Begg came in and
asks for 50 feet.
Kennedy asked Parsons to address the engineer's statement
regarding the cash in lieu of parkland fee.
Parsons explained that on a typical subdivision, the way you have
the entire property subdivided out into lots and streets, you
could subtract out as a percentage, the streets, leaving the total
amount of acreage to be developed into lots, using that
percentage, and 11%, because it is an urban density development
for the parkland dedication. I would agree that the streets
should be taken out, but not the common area. No credit is
given for the tot -lot, because it is not considered public parkland
for the use of the general public. State law has changed as of
October 1, 1995, however, this particular development is required
to contribute 11%, because it is an urban density development.
Lopp again referred to the updated Kalispell Subdivision
Regulations, pertaining to parkland dedication and felt it should
be discussed during the workshop.
4
\, Hash asked about the landscaping plan.
Susan Moyer explained that the landscaping plan is being
developed. It is their intention to provide as much privacy and
screening as possible, with berming, trees and other plantings.
What we do with landscaping will be directly related to other fees
we have to absorb in this project. I would prefer to have as
much landscaping, as possible, and buffer it from the surrounding
areas. If we have to pay the cash in lieu fee for parks, we won't
have the money to put into quality landscaping. We don't have
a lot of land to work with. We have tried to structure the units
on the site so that there is privacy.
Hash referred to Meridian Pointe, which is a much higher density
than this development. The neighborhood was quite concerned
and those residents have a very vehement complaint about the
fact there is no fencing or landscaping, and problems they have
experienced from the development. Since this development adjoins
a residential area, I will express those concerns.
Parsons pointed out that Meridian Pointe is very different than
what is proposed here. Meridian Pointe is a rental apartment
complex. This is a subdivision, owner -occupied townhouse
development. Meridian Pointe has very large, imposing buildings
with a lot of units.
\ Parsons pointed out that in reviewing the parkland dedication
criteria, it lists the lands not appropriate for park purposes. In
this instance, an area less than two acres in size.
Kennedy asked if the 11% was required by state law, or can the
Board waive or reduce the fee?
Parsons answered that state law allows you to require 11%. You
cannot exceed 11%, and may waive or reduce the fee.
Kennedy calculated that the streets were 21%, subtracted from the
total market value, 11% of which would equal $12,166 for parkland
fees. She believes this is a quality subdivision and one which the
city is in dire need of. It is also something that City Council
needs to finish the contracts, and complete projects that we have
on the Board for -the number of housing units that are needed in
our area. We need the low income housing. I clearly believe that
if 60' ROW were possible, it would be designed for 60' ROW. As
long as we know that it has the City Engineer's blessing, and that
the knowledge that the adjacent property will also request the
same 50' ROW variance, I thihlkh we need to go forward with it,
rather than try to redesign the project and end up losing
housing units. We cannot afford to lose the contract to put in a
certain number of housing units. In order to compare contracts,
j 5
(1 the City of Kalispell needs to move on. This is in conjunction
l with the Woodland Court project with the single family homes.
This is a quality design, with a feel of open space, and these will
be be private ownership and in that regard, cannot be compared
to Meridian Pointe. The City will do the best it can to make this
development look its best, or the City will take a lot of heat in
this community. Any costs borne will be passed down to potential
buyers, and must be considered.
Hash agreed that this was a worthwhile project, but had a
problem with the City asking for a variance from its own
requirements. It is difficult as a public official, my role as an
attorney, and a court official, to be exempted from the very
requirements we wish to impose on others. Albeit, it is for a
marvelous reason. So are many other developments we have
heard. We have many, many developers asking us for a reduction
in one requirement or another for the very same reason that
higher expenses on their part, will impact their ability to make
lower priced homes for the subsequent consumer. In many of
those cases, we have held fast to the particular requirement.
Hodgeboom also felt that the City should be held to the same
requirements as far as payment of cash in lieu, just like any
other developer. Those costs get handed down, no matter who
develops it, whether it is the City or someone else. I think it is
fair to stick with that requirement. I feel that the road standard
is designed that the reduction in ROW will not effect the use of
the road. It will still be a fine road and a connection that the
adjacent properties can develop. I can support the 50' ROW
variance, but not the parkland variance request.
Motion Kennedy made the motion that the City County Planning Board
adopt FRDO preliminary plat report #KPP-95-04, and conditional
use report #KCU-95-05 as findings of fact, and forward a
favorable recommendation to City Council to grant the conditional
use permit and approve the preliminary plat for Teton Terrace
subject to the 16 conditions, with #9 modified to read $12,166 be
paid as cash in lieu to the City of Kalispell for parkland. Bahr
seconded. On a roll call vote Bahr, Carlson, Hodgeboom, Kennedy,
Sanders and Hash voted aye. Lopp voted no. Fraser abstained
from voting. The motion carried on a 6-1-1 vote.
Fraser returned to the Board.
MILLER The next agenda item was introduced on a request by Al Miller,
ANNEXATION & et al, for annexation to the City of Kalispell with an initial zoning
ZONE CHANGE classification of I-1, Light Industrial. The properties are currently
COUNTY I-1 Flathead County I-1, Light Industrial, R-1 Suburban Residential,
TO CITY I-1 and B-2 General Business. The annexation is located approximately
6
200 feet east of US Highway 93 on the south side of Kelly Road.
Staff Report Parsons presented report #KA-95-11. Based on the review of the
necessary criteria for evaluation of a zone change, staff
recommended the request for an I-1 zone classification upon
annexation into the City, be sent to City Council with a favorable
recommendation.
Public Hearing The public hearing was opened -to those in favor of the requested
zone upon annexation.
In Favor Al Miller, one of -the applicants, spoke in favor of the I-1 zone
calssification upon annexation into the City. They would like to
take advantage of the city services. He said they are not
changing anything on the site, except, at our own expense, we
have extended the sewer system from South Woodland Avenue -to
the Pepsi Cola building.
No one else spoke in favor. The public hearing was opened to
opponents of the requested zone classification upon annexation.
Opposition Carolyn Wirt, Big Sky Properties, an adjacent property owner,
wanted clarification on whether her property was included in the
request for annexation. Staff told her that it was not. She was
not opposed to Miller's request.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was
closed and it was opened to Board discussion.
Discussion The Board clarified that the majority of -the subject property was
already zoned I-1 in the County, but is a split zone. Fraser
commented that the requested zone is in substantial compliance
with the Master Plan, and that the uses on the property already
exist next to the residential area to the east.
The Board expressed concern about the extension of the I-1 zone
classification into the R-1 zone. Staff read through the permitted
uses in the I-1 zone, which are similar in the county and city.
It was pointed out that the current County I-1 zone exists
adjacent to R-5 to the east and R-1 to the south. The applicant
is requesting that the property with split zones of B-2, I-1 and
R-1 in the County be changed to City I-1.
The applicant informed the Board that the southern portion of his
property, which is currently County R-1, is a slough, and could
not be developed.
Motion Lapp moved to adopt report #KA-95-11 as findings of fact and
forward a positive recommendation to City Council for the
requested I-1 zone upon annexation. Kennedy seconded. On a
�� 7
roll call vote all members present voted aye. The motion carried
on a 8-0 vote in favor.
WOODS The next item was a request by Ira Gene and Diane Woods, for
ANNEXATION & annexation to the City of Kalispell with an initial zoning
ZONE CHANGE / classification of R-1, Suburban Residential. The property is known
COUNTY R-1 TO as Lot 2, Insteness Subdivision in the NE4 of Section 19, Township
CITY R-1 28 North, Range 21 West, P1M.M., Flathead County, Montana. The
property is located approximately 200 feet south of Sunnyside
Drive where 6th Avenue West ends.
Staff Report Parsons gave a presentation of report #KA-95-10. The request for
an R-1 zoning classification upon annexation into the City of
Kalispell meets all the necessary criteria for a zone change, and
it is recommended for approval.
Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the request.
In Favor Ira Woods, the property owner/applicant, said that he owns about
2.5 acres that he wants to annex into the city. With the
development that has occurred on the other side of Ashley Creek
to the south and west are city property, and my parcel is
becoming an island. I would like to run city services to the
parcel. My intention is build a house and keep the zoning the
same as it is in the county. More than 70% is in the floodplain
and I intend to keep that as a wildlife corridor for Ashley Creek.
No one else spoke either in favor or in opposition to the
requested zone classification. The public hearing was closed and
it was opened to Board discussion.
Discussion The Board commended the Woods for leaving things as they are,
as it is rare that someone wants to maintain the integrity of
natural areas.
Motion Fraser moved to adopt FRDO report #KA-95-10 as findings of fact
and the recommendation therein for approval of the zone
classification of R-1 upon annexation. Lopp seconded. On a roll
call vote Hodgeboom, Kennedy, Fraser, Carlson, Bahr, Sanders,
Lopp and Hash voted aye. The motion carried unanimously in
favor of the Woods' request for an R-1 zone classification upon
annexation into the City of Kalispell.
WALLACE The next item was introduced on a request by Chris and Libby
ZONE CHANGE / Wallace for a rezoning of property from R-1, Suburban Residential
R-1 TO R-4 to R-4, Two Family Reisdential. The property is known as Lot 1,
Insteness Subdivision in the NE4 of Section 19, Township 28 North,
Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana. The property
is located on the south side of Sunnyside Drive where 6th Avenue
West ends.
�` 8
/ Staff Report Parsons gave an overview of report #KZC-95-6. The subject
property is immediately north of the property that action was
taken on prior to this agenda item. The property is within the
city limits, and meets all the necessary criteria for a zone change.
It is recommended that the request from R-1 to R-4 be granted.
Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to proponents of the zone change.
In Favor Libby Wallace, asked for a favorable recommendation of their
request. She said -they do not have -the intention of leaving it
natural, like the previous applicant. Their intention is -to finish
off making it look like the rest of the neighborhood. We would
like to build our home on the lot, and allow the other lot to be
sold.
No one else spoke either in favor or in opposition to -the zone
change. The public hearing was closed and opened to Board
discussion.
Discussion An editorial change was made to the staff report, on page 1,
under Zoning and Land Use, to clearly state that north of the
subject property, north of Sunnyside Drive, is zoned City R-4, to
show that the requested zone change is an extension of R-4 and
not a spot zone.
_ Kennedy clarified that the requested R-4 zone is a two-family,
�) duplex zone, and the -two dwelling units would have -to be
attached. She ascertained that a house already exists on the lot,
so a second dwelling would have to be attached to the existing
house, or it would have to be torn down in order to build a
duplex.
Staff replied that the applicant will probably subdivide the lot to
build another structure.
Hash considered a road a valid division of zoning classifications,
and expressed her opposition to the zone change. We just
approved an R-1 zone on land immediately adjacent to this
property. There are no roads or breaks between the Wallace
property and the Woods` property. We have one landowner who
recognizes there is floodplain and wishes to keep it as a wildlife
corridor. It seems the height of irony -to applaud a retention of
an R-1 in this area, and then turn around and change an R-1 to
a much higher density of 8 units per acre. All -the property
south of Sunnyside Drive is zoned R-1.
Bahr pointed out that adjacent to this lot there are three small
lots to the west that are less than one acre in size, and city
services are available.
9
Motion
Fraser moved to adopt staff report #KZC-95-6 and the findings of
fact -therein, and recommend the zone change from R-1 to R-4.
Bahr seconded. On a roll call vote Fraser, Carlson, Hodgeboom,
Sanders, and Bahr voted aye. Kennedy, Lopp and Hash voted no.
The motion carried on a 5-3 vote in favor of recommending the
requested zone change.
CESNICK
Next, was a request by Robert Cesnick for a zone change from R-1
ZONE CHANGE /
Suburban Residential to B-2 General Business on approximately 1.5
FROM R-1
acres. The property location is the northwest corner of US
TO B-2
Highway 2 and River Road, east of Kalispell. The property is
described as Certificate of Survey No. 3255 and Tract 2 of
Certificate of Survey No. 1944, located in the SW4 of Section 4,
Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County,
Montana.
Staff Report Parsons presented report #FZC-95-12. The requested zone change
was evaluated in accordance with the statutory criteria and it was
recommended that the request from R-1 to B-2 be granted.
Questions Staff was asked to clarify the property subject to the zone
change request. A triangular piece of land extends from -the
shaded area on the map, adjacent to the highway, and the Board
asked if that was included in the zone change request? Fraser
asked if that piece could be included to avoid another zone
C change request? Mr. Cesnick informed the Board that the
property in question belongs to Western Neon. Staff recommended
that it not be done without notifying the property owner, or a
published legal notice.
Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to proponents of -the requested
zone change.
In Favor Bob Cesnick, 14 River Road, the applicant, explained that -the small
piece of property the Board discussed was a road abandonment
and it belongs to Gary Collier where signage is located. He asked
that the zone change be granted, as he is surrounded by
business zones.
No one else spoke either in favor or in opposition to the zone
change request. The public hearing was closed and opened to
Board discussion.
Discussion Concern was expressed regarding protection of -the river from
erosion and run-off. Staff explained that the current regulations
would establish a 20 foot protection zone from -the high water
mark, and any development would be subject to the floodplain
development regulations.
Carlson had a problem with a B-2 zone next to the floodplain.
10
Kennedy pointed out that there is no protection now. Mr. Cesnick
has been putting fill on that property for quite some time, and
there hasn't been any regulation on the current fill going on
there to raise the level of the high water mark.
Lopp asked why the B-2 zoning stopped at River Road and did
not continue until past the river? The history of the zoning
process for Evergreen was discussed.
Motion
Hodgeboom moved to adopt report #FZC-95-12 as findings of fact
and forward a favorable recommendation to the County
Commissioners for the zone change. Bahr seconded. On a roll call
vote Sanders, Fraser, Bahr, Hodgeboom, Kennedy, and Hash voted
aye. Lapp and Carlson voted no. The motion carried on a 6-2
vote in favor of the zone change request from R-1 to B-2.
ABELL
Hash introduced the next item which was a request by Annette
ZONE CHANGE /
Abell for a zone change from SAG-10 Suburban Agricultur -to R-1
FROM SAG-10
Suburban Residential on approximately 1.5 acres. The location of
TO R-1
the property is approximately 1,000 feet east of Helena Flats Road
at the end of Springwood Lane, east of Kalispell. The property
is described as Tract 2A of Certificate of Survey No. 8323, located
in the SE4 of Section 27, Township 29 North, Range 21 West,
P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana.
11
Staff Report
Parsons presented report #FZC-95-11. The subject property is
`J
split by two zoning districts, and the request is to rezone the
part which is zoned SAG-10 to be consistent with the R-1 zone of
the east portion. Staff evaluated the request in accordance with
the necessary criteria and recommended the zone change.
Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the zone
change request.
In Favor Annette Abell, -the applicant, said she would like to have all of her
property zoned R-1, instead of being split down the middle with
two zones.
There being no other speakers either in favor or in opposition to
the zone change, the public hearing was closed and opened it to
Board discussion.
Motion Kennedy moved to adopt FRDO report #FZC-95-11 as findings of
fact and forward a favorable recommendation for the zone change
from SAG-10 to R-1, -to -the County Commissioners. Bahr seconded.
On a roll call vote Lopp, Kennedy, Carlson, Bahr, Fraser,
Hodgeboom, Sanders and Hash voted aye. The motion carried
unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS There was no old business.
11
NEW BUSINESS There will be one item on the next agenda.
Carlson distributed a booklet to Board members entitled, "The New
Home on the Range: Economic Realities in -the Greater Columbia
River Basin".
Kennedy announced -that "Which Way Kalispell?" is scheduled at
the Outlaw on Tuesday, November 21st from 3 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. put
on by the Kalispell Development Corporation and the City of
Kalis p ell.
The newly adopted Flathead County Subdivision Regulations were
distributed to Board members, to be put in -the red books.
Wood announced that City Council adopted a new extension of
services plan and he will get copies for inclusion in the Board's
books.
ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at
8:50 p.m.
CJTherese Fox Hash, President Ehz et Ontko, Recording Secretary
`J
1
APPROVED: 6W �� JZ/�� l
WORKSHOP: Immediately following adjournment, a workshop was held to review
revisions to the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations.
12