06-14-94 Planning BoardKALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING
JUNE 14, 1994
CALL TO ORDER The regularly scheduled meeting of the Kalispell City -
AND ROLL CALL County Planning Board and Zoning Commission was called
.to order at 7:02 p.m. by President Hash. Board members
present were DeGrosky, Kennedy, Carlson, Fraser,
Hodgeboom, Sanders, Bahr, Lopp and Hash. John Parsons,
Senior Planner represented the Flathead Regional
Development Office. Brian Wood, Zoning Administrator
represented the City of Kalispell. There were
approximately 35 people in the audience.
APPROVAL OF The minutes of the May 10, 1994 meeting were corrected
MINUTES / as follows: on pg. 2, regarding the Norwest Bank CUP,
MAY 10, 1994 the sentence referring to diagonal parking be deleted;
on pg. 3, paragraph 2, the name "Mayhugh" should be
spelled "Mahugh". The minutes were approved as
corrected on a motion by Bahr, second by Hodgeboom.
CHOWNING The first public hearing item was a request by Richard
CONDITIONAL Chowning to allow as a conditional use the construction
(^� USE PERMIT of two one-story duplex apartment buildings on Lot 1 of
Liberty Village in Kalispell; Section 12, Township 28
North, Range 22 West, P.M.M., Flathead County.
Staff Report Parsons presented report #KCU-94-09. The request was
evaluated and based on the findings, staff recommended
that the conditional use permit be granted subject to
seven (7) conditions set forth in the report.
Public Hearing The public hearing was opened. No one spoke either in
favor or in opposition to the proposal. The public
hearing was closed, and the meeting opened to Board
discussion.
Motion Fraser moved to accept report #KCU-94-09 with the
findings of fact and the recommendations as contained
therein. DeGrosky seconded. On a roll call vote the
Board voted unanimously (9-0) in favor of granting the
conditional use permit.
SLOAN The next item was a request by Stephen and Cheri Sloan
CONDITIONAL to allow as a conditional use the construction of a two
USE PERMIT (2) story, six (6) unit apartment building on Lot 2 of
Liberty Village in Kalispell; Section 12, Township 28
North, Range 22 West, P.M.M., Flathead County.
Staff Report Parsons gave a brief presentation of report #KCU-94-11,
with a recommendation for approval.
1 v�
Public Hearing The public hearing was opened. No one spoke either in
favor or in opposition to the proposal. The public
hearing was closed and the meeting was opened to Board
discussion.
Motion Kennedy moved to adopt the findings of fact in report
#KCU-94-11 and recommend City Council grant the
conditional use permit with the seven (7) conditions.
Sanders seconded. Fraser questioned the adequacy of
the service lines to these units.
Motion Fraser moved to add a condition #8 to read: All water
and sewer main extensions shall be subject to approval
by the City of Kalispell Public Works Department and
the State Department of Health and Environmental
Sciences. Lopp seconded. On a roll call vote the
amendment to the previous motion was approved on a 9-0
vote in favor.
On a roll call vote, Hodgeboom, Lopp, Bahr, Carlson,
Fraser, Sanders, Kennedy, DeGrosky and Hash voted to
grant the conditional use permit with the conditions as
amended.
_ TCI
Next, was a request by Weldon
Plymton of
TCI
�) CABLEVISION
Cablevisionof Montana, Inc. for a
conditional
use
CONDITIONAL
permit in accordance with Section
27.16.030 of
the
USE PERMIT
Kalispell Zoning Ordinance to allow
an antenna
and
equipment room ancillary to a cable company in the B-4
zone. The use will include an expansion to the north
of the TCI Cablevision offices, located between 3rd and
4th Streets East on the east side of 1st Avenue East
(across from City Hall). The address is 333 1st Avenue
East, more specifically described as Original Kalispell
Lot 12 of Block 64.
Staff Report Parsons gave an overview of report #KCU-94-10, which
evaluated the request, with a recommendation for
approval subject to five (5) conditions. In answer to
Board questions, he stated that the applicant intends
to replace the old antenna with a less obtrusive one.
This does not trigger the criteria for evaluation of a
nonconforming use.
Public Hearing The meeting was opened to public hearing.
In Favor
Opposition
Discussion
Mike Mason, representative for TCI Cablevision, was
available to answer questions.
No one spoke in opposition to the project. The public
hearing was closed and opened to Board discussion.
The Board agreed that this project would be an
improvement to the -existing structure.
2
Motion
Fraser moved to accept report #KCU-94-10 as findings of
fact and to recommend City Council grant the
conditional use permit subject to the five (5)
conditions with the following change to condition #1:
"...the old antenna shall be removed concurrent with
the erection of the new antenna." DeGrosky seconded.
On a roll call vote Hodgeboom, DeGrosky, Sanders, Bahr,
Lopp, Kennedy, Carlson, Fraser and Hash voted aye.
CITY SERVICE
Hash introduced a request by Northwest Investment
ZONE CHANGE /
Partnership (City Service) to amend the Lower Side
I-1H TO I-2
Zoning District by changing the zoning on approximately
5.5 acres from I-1H (Light Industrial - Highway) to I-2
(Heavy Industrial) in. accordance with the Flathead
County Zoning Regulations (Flathead County Resolution
No. 955A). The property is located on west side of
Demersville Road east of the Burlington Northern
Railroad and US Highway 93, generally north of the
intersection of Rocky Cliff Drive, Demersville Road,
and US Highway 93, and is further described as Tract
4DB in the SE4SW4 of Section 33, Township 28 North,
Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana.
Staff Report Parsons presented report #FZC-94-12. The purpose of
the zone change is to relocate bulk fuel storage out of
Kalispell. The request was evaluated in accordance
with the statutory criteria set forth for a zone
change. Based on the evaluation, staff recommended the
zone change be granted.
Kennedy questioned the difference between the I-1H zone
classification with the highway standards overlay, and
the I-2 standards. Parsons responded that I-2 is a
very liberal zone classification. Alternatives to a
zone change were discussed. Lopp asked if the tanks
stored on the site were empty.
Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the
zone change.
In Favor Steve Hanson, representative for City Service, assured
the Board that the tanks being stored on site were
empty and are being hauled away. He explained the
purpose of the zone change request. Currently, fuel
storage tanks are located throughout Kalispell. Their
intention is to consolidate the bulk facilities onto
the site south of town and get the tanks away from
congestion, business and residential areas. Safety is
a primary issue for the relocation of the industrial
type traffic and bulk fuel storage. They just
completed the installation of a traffic light on 18th
Street near the Outlaw, and the removal of the storage
facilities will further alleviate dangerous traffic.
No increase in traffic is anticipated as the property
is presently being used for truck repair. Dust
abatement will be used.
3
There were no other proponents for the zone change. No
one spoke in opposition. The public hearing was closed
and the meeting opened to Board consideration.
Discussion The discrepancy in the amount of acreage under
consideration for the zone change was corrected to be
6.7 acres instead of 5.5. The Board expressed concerns
with the heavy industrial zoning without the highway
standards overlay at the entrance into Kalispell. Mr.
Hanson responded that their intention is to landscape
and have setbacks to aesthetically improve the site.
DeGrosky reviewed the Highway 93 South zoning process,
and had a problem with the request for I-2. The Board
compromised heavily on the I-1H zone and this is
further compromise.
Hubert Quirt, Rocky Cliff Drive, stated that there is
a sawmill in there now. He asked if that was allowed
in an I-2? He reviewed the history of uses in the
area. It was 93 Recyling, now it is a sawmill and it
is a mess. They are building all the time and adding
on. Have had this problem before, where they put
people out of business because they did not have a
clean place. He believes City Service will do a neat
job, but north of them will be a detriment.
( ) Motion Lopp moved to adopt #FZC-94-12 as findings of fact, and
to recommend the zone change from I-1H to I-2. Kennedy
seconded.
Discussion followed on the motion. DeGrosky felt that
the issue is not whether or not City Service will do a
good job on the site, the issue is that within one year
we have created the I-1H zone after considerable work.
Parsons explained that when a zone change request is in
substantial conformance with the Master Plan, he must
recommend approval. He suggested that to curtail
future heavy industrial requests, that the Master Plan
be changed. The neighborhood plan is bounded to the
south by Rocky Cliff Drive and Ashley Creek. Carlson
expressed his problem with the idea that zoning is
planning. Zoning is not planning. Fraser clarified
that if a request is in compliance with the Master
Plan, it must be approved by law. So, then of what
value is the evaluation criteria? If the evaluation is
of no value, then the Board has wasted a lot of time on
zone change requests.
on a roll call vote Kennedy, Bahr, Sanders, Hodgeboom,
Lopp and Hash voted aye; Fraser, DeGrosky and Carlson
voted no. The motion carried on a 6-3 vote to
recommend the zone change from I-1H to I-2.
4
AMERICAN LAND The next item was a request by American Land and
& DEVELOPMENT Development, Inc. to amend the Willow Glen Zoning
ZONE CHANGE / District by changing the zoning on approxiamtely 55
R-1 AND R-2 acres from R-1 (Surburban Residential) and R-2 (One
TO R-5 Family Limited Residential) to R-5 (Two Family
Residential) in accordance with the Flathead County
Zoning Regulations' (Flathead County Resolution No.
955A). The properties are generally located on both
sides of Willow Glen Drive south of Kelly Road. The
parcels are further described as Tracts 4AA and 4C in
S21-T28N-R21W; and Tracts 7N, 70GA, 70H, 5CB, 5CBA and
5CBB in S20-T28N-R21W, P.M.M., Flathead County,
Montana.
Staff Report Parsons presented report #FZC-94-13. The rezone is
requested for eight (8) individual parcels. Staff's
evaluation of the request has found the rezone from R-1
and R-2 to R-5 to be in substantial conformance with
the Master Plan and recommended approval. Staff has
received numerous inquiries regarding this zone change
application. Their concerns were generally focused on
the density of the R-5 zone classification, and the
impact on services. Two letters were included in the
packet from adjacent property owners in favor of the
R-5 zone change. As requested in the letter, the Fisco
property was included in the zone change request.
Questions The Board questioned Parsons on the Master Plan
designation for the subject properties. He stated that
substantial conformance to the Master Plan allows for
interpretation. With urban services available to the
area, urban densities are considered an allowable zone
change, but not mandatory. He would not consider this
development as in -fill, but would consider it on the
urban fringes and a logical expansion of the city.
Public Hearing The public hearing was opened.
In Favor Doug Denmark, ReMax Land and Lake Realty, representing
American Land and Development, explained that they
develop land on the edges of cities, extend city
services and then build single family homes to provide
quality affordable housing. They do not intend to
develop at the maximum density of the R-5 zone, but did
not want to close their options, so asked for the high
density, duplex zone. They understand the concerns of
the neighborhood, and would perhaps establish a buffer
at an R-3 density. He was available for questions.
No one else spoke in favor. The hearing was opened to
opponents of the zone change.
Opposition Dave Astle, Leisure Drive, has looked at the documents
submitted by the Health Department, the staff report
and listened to the comments about the Master Plan. He
contended that the proposal does not comply with the
5
Master Plan, as everything east of Willow Glen Drive is
designated as suburban residential. West of Willow
Glen Drive is a higher density at R-2, which
constitutes a transition from a higher to a lower
density. People in this area rely on the Master Plan.
The staff says it is in compliance with the Master Plan
and if you don't go along with it, you invite a
lawsuit. On the other hand, this man says it is in
substantial compliance with the Master Plan. Perhaps
on the west side of Willow Glen, it does, but on the
east side it says that primarily it should be suburban
residential. There is other criteria used in the
evaluation to determine whether or not the zoning was
designed to lessen congestion in the streets. That is
not addressed in the staff's recommendation to the
Board. At present, there are only two accesses to this
area - Kelly Road and Willow Glen. Right now the Kelly
Road area has been developed with affordable housing
which has dangerously congested Kelly Road. Further
development in this area will add to the congestion.
Willow Glen used to be signed "Dangerous Intersection".
The sign was removed by the County because they did not
want the liability of calling it a dangerous
intersection and not doing anything about it. Third,
the historical uses for the area is not addressed. The
fourth criteria regarding safety from fire, panic and
-� other dangers is addressed, but with a higher density
there will be problems. The fifth criteria which asks
does the requested change promote health and general
welfare, with the congested traffic, there will be
problems with accidents. Does the requested zone
prevent the overcrowding of the land and avoid undue
concentration of people, goes without saying. The
Master Plan promotes this to be a buffer zone and not
an outlying zone of duplexes. The property owner who
has written a letter in favor of the zone change and
requested to be included, is presently in violation of
the R-2 zone and is in court. Regarding the next
criteria pertaining to provision of services, he
pointed out that there are areas with sewer problems.
Consideration to the suitability of property for
particular uses, the plan is to create suburban
residential and then move back into a higher density.
He urged the Board to follow the plan. The highest and
best use of that property is probably residential, but
not high density. He asserted that the zone change is
NOT in substantial conformance with the Master Plan,
which designates this area as suburban residential.
Grace Johnson, Leisure Drive, owns a one-half acre lot,
and believes we need affordable housing, but does not
J believe in creating an instant ghetto. She protested
the zone change, because any use allowed in that zone
cannot be denied by law. These people may have good
intentions for their development, but if they
experience a financial crunch and sell out, the highest
11
density permitted in that zone could conceivably be
built. This will have a serious impact on the
neighborhood. She waited years to buy her home. She
cannot go back to the bank and renegotiate her
mortgage. What is zoning for? A huge amount of effort
went into the process to produce a Master Plan. It was
promoted as a protection to homeowners against
development they don't want. These lots were already
zoned. She received her notice regarding the zone
change on Friday night. She tried to get information
on Monday about her lot, and the traffic impacts on
Willow Glen Drive. No one had the information she
requested. She ended up contacting the Highway
Department in Helena and found out that a county road
is not in their tracking system. The intersection on
Willow Glen and Woodland Ave. is very dangerous with
many accidents. It is used by truck traffic, which
shouldn't be there. It is very dangerous. The County
Parks Department is turning down parkland and taking
money instead. But in a high density development,
there are no yards for kids, no parks for them to play
ball, etc. Where are these kids going to go? There
are no sidewalks or bike paths on Willow Glen. If
these amenities are provided, she is sure that it will
cease to be affordable housing. It is not fair. If
(_l you are going to tell people that their zoning is going
to stick and they have a mortgage at the bank, you have
to keep the faith. This is why people are opposed to
the building permit program. They feel that it will
keep people from using their own property, but when a
big sweetheart deal comes along, then their property
will be affected. She personally feels the building
permit program is right, but so is keeping the faith in
the Master Plan. It is presently zoned R-1 and R-2 and
even with the existing homes, the traffic on Willow
Glen is not safe. It is not reasonable to put more
density in there.
James Cross, 618 Leisure Drive, suggested that the
Board modify the request to keep the acreage on the
east side of Willow Glen Drive as R-2 , and create a
transition zone between the R-2 and R-5, to blend the
variations and avoid an abrubt juncture.
Nina Wickersham, 759 Greenridge Drive, got involved
with the zoning process and when they were zoned R-2
that is what they thought they had. It was their
understanding that this zone classification was what
the Master Plan designated for their area. The
proposed density of the R-5 zone will have a
significant impact on the traffic and schools.
Glen Graham, 739 Greenridge
zone change as it flies in
Shame on the planning staff
is not right. And shame on
Drive, is opposed to the
the face of common sense.
for recommending this. It
the Board if you vote in
7
favor of this. The south end of Willow Glen Drive was
cleaned up by the Rotary Club 20 years ago. Let's not
mess it up now.
Margaret Winter, Leisure Drive, is opposed to the zone
change.
Debbie Borgen, 1572 Eagle Drive, objected mightily to
the legal notice sent to her which she did not
understand. She bought her place because it was out of
town, with a view of the slough and island. If there
is more development in the area, she is afaid it will
increase her taxes, and she wants to know what she will
get for her taxes. Will the County improve the road,
add classrooms, increase fire and police protection?
Those services are needed out there before any more
houses go in. That was what she felt planning was all
about.
Mirth Stedje, who owns property on Leisure Drive,
recalled her zone change request one year ago from R-1
to R-2, and she remembers opposition to that. The R-5
zone is a much greater density, which will have a great
impact on the schools that are already filled to
capacity.
Mike Wickersham, agreed with previous testimony. The
kids from the proposed development would go to Elrod
School. There are no schools or park/play areas
nearby. There is a need for affordable housing in the
community and he did not want to be a NIMBY, but the
traffic on Willow Glen Drive is extremely dangerous for
all kinds of traffic, difficult for kids to cross, and
with no place for the kids to play, it is not the right
location for a high density affordable housing
development.
There being no further public comment either in favor
or in opposition to. the proposed zone change, the
public hearing was closed and the meeting opened to
Board deliberation.
Discussion DeGrosky noted that the people have made their desires
clear that they do not want R-5 zoning on Willow Glen.
West of Willow Glen would be a logical extension of the
existing subdivisions, and it appears that in two
subsequent public hearings, the Master Plan argument
cuts both ways. The Master Plan says it is suburban
residential, not urban residential. Bahr agreed that
west of Willow Glen would be appropriate as R-5, but
east of Willow Glen would not. Sanders asked Mr.
Denmark how a split zone would affect their project?
Mr. Denmark responded that it would defeat the whole
purpose. American Land and Development has very
limited potential for development on the west side. On
the east side, they were looking at a maximum of 200
E:3
houses at an average price of $92,000, on an average
lot size of 1/4 to 1/5 of an acre. There isn't a
market for tiny lots. He argued that it would be
better to put houses closer to town and preserve the
farmlands in a development that has all the controls in
place. Lopp stated that the proposed zoning has a
significant impact on property values. It is not in
conformance with the Master Plan. When a person buys
a piece of property, and they look at the Master Plan
and they look at the current zoning, they should have
a reasonable expectation that it will remain the same.
It will have a significant impact on the Leisure Drive
subdivision as anyone who looks at it will see that it
is currently zoned R-2 all the way to Willow Glen
Drive. By definition, zoning goes with the land, and
no matter what the intention is for the property,
everything that is allowed in the zone can be approved.
The minimum lot size in an R-5 zone is 5500 square
feet. That is four times the density of the R-2. That
is not a transition buffer next to 1/2 acre lots. He
would be willing to support the zone change on property
continguous to the existing R-5, but cannot support the
entire zone change request. Fraser agreed
wholeheartedly. He is not convinced that any of the
area requested to be zoned R-5 is in the best interests
of the Master Plan. He was not sure it met any of the
criteria established for a zone change due to traffic,
health, life, safety, and undue crowding. It is not
the Board's role to compromise the recommendation for
the overall good. He questioned whether any of it
should be approved.
Motion Lopp moved to reject staff report #FZC-94-13 based upon
the noncompliance with the Master Plan and forward a
recommendation to the County Commissioners to deny the
zone change. Fraser seconded.
Parsons. countered that in staff's opinion the zone
change request was in conformance with the entire
Master Plan document, that one should not just look at
the map. Services are available to the area.
The Board proceeded to make new findings of fact as
part of the motion made by Lopp.
Does the Requested Zone Comply with the Master Plan?
By concensus, the Board agreed that it does not.
Will the Reauested Zone Secure Safety From Fire, Panic
and Other Dangers? The increased density will
adversely impact safety.
Will the Requested Change Promote the Health and
General Welfare? The impacts of the increased traffic
generation cannot be mitigated at any time by this
development.
9
Will the Requested Zone Prevent the Overcrowding of
Land? Overcrowding of the land will be significant in
relationship to the surrounding area. Encourages the
overcrowding of the land by' nature of the proposed
density, in a suburban area as designated by the Master
Plan and its text.
Will the Requested Zone Avoid Undue Concentration of
People? The proposed zone change would increase the
intensity of uses permitted on the property, and would
overload the infrastructure by an undue concentration
of people.
t=1M�t��[+f1*E=� �'�YrMI�1�l:7i�f��i�+i.7��i+1i7�;f�.lZ��iil+i��[•��;�'1����1!
Uses? The requested zone change does not provide a
transition zone -as anticipated in the Master Plan for
this area.
Does the Requested Zone Give Reasonable Consideration
to the Character of this District? The properties in
this district are primarily suburban residential. The
proposed zoning would have a negative impact on the
character of the district.
Would the Proposed Zoning Conserve the Value of the
Buildings? The proposed zoning would have a
detrimental affect on the value of the area.
Will the RequestedZone Change Encourage the Most
Appropriate use of the Land , Throughout the
Jurisdiction? The requested zoning classification
would not be consistent with the Kalispell City -County
Master Plan Map. The Plan identifies this area for
suburban residential development.
The discussion and recommendation reflected Board's
findings to state that: The property is located in an
area that is designated as suburban residential in the
City -County Master Plan. The impact on services, the
transportation corridor and Kalispell are adverse. It
is recommended that the requested zone change from R-1
and R-2 to R-5 be denied.
Motion The motion was restated. Lopp moved to recommend that
the Board of County Commissioners reject staff report
#FZC-94-13 as findings of fact, and adopt the Kalispell
City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission's
findings of fact and recommendation to deny the
requested zone change. Fraser seconded the amended
motion to include the Board's findings. On a roll call
vote Bahr, DeGrosky, Sanders, Kennedy, Hodgeboom,
Fraser, Lopp, Carlson and Hash voted unanimously in
favor of the motion to deny the zone change request.
10
It was announced to the audience that the North
Meridian Plan slated to be discussed under old
business, would be continued until the July meeting.
COMMISSION Next, was a request by the Board of County
INITIATED Commissioners to amend the Evergreen Zoning District by
ZONE CHANGE / changing the existing R-5 zoning on approximately 49
EXISTING R-5 acres to B-2 (General Business) under the new
TO B-2 regulations (B-3 under the old regulations) in
accordance with the Flathead County Zoning Regulations
(Flathead County Resolution No. 955A). The property is
located between Evergreen Drive and Cottonwood Drive on
the east side of US Highway 2, approximately 800 feet
deep, in Section 4, Township 28 North, Range 21 West,
P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana.
Staff Report Parsons briefly presented report #FZC-94-11. The
Commissioners have requested that the split B-2/R-5
zones in the Evergreen Zoning District be changed to be
all B-2 as indicated on the map attached to the staff
report. The request was evaluated pursuant to the
statutory criteria for a zone change and it is
recommended that the request be granted. Two letters
have been received from property owners in the vicinity
objecting to the amount of commercial zoning requested.
Parsons suggested that the requested zone change could
possibly follow the property boundardies, rather than
extend back 800 feet.
Public Hearing The public hearing was opened. No one spoke in favor
In Favor of the zone change request. The hearing was opened to
opposition.
Opposition Charles Keller, owns property in the northwest corner
of this proposal, which has a split zone on it. He has
been paying commercial taxes on the property, so he
asked the Commissioners to zone the parcel B-2. He did
not want it extended all the way back. He would like
to see the parcels along the highway which are split
with a B-2 and R-5 zone be changed to B-2, but to leave
the residential.
Rex Healy, is opposed to the zone change. They are
residential property owners of the southwest lot which
is in the B-2 zone and he would actually like it to be
changed to residential zoning, or leave it as it is.
He objected to the extension of the B-2 zoning of the
houses along East Cottonwood.
There being no further testimony, the public hearing
- was closed and the meeting opened to Board discussion.
Discussion The Board agreed that it made sense to extend the
arbitrary line splitting the B-2 from the R-5 zones to
the east boundary of the lots fronting on Highway 2.
However, did not understand how a request by three
11 ,
property owners to adjust that line on their property
could extend to the entire 49 acres in question. The
Board clarified that all affected property owners were
notified of the requested zone change.
Motion Kennedy moved to adopt the findings of fact in report
#FZC-94-11, and recommend the zone change from R-5 to
B-2, revising the boundary of the zoning district to
follow the rear property boundaries of the commercial
lots along Highway 2, except those lots which extend
800 feet back where the zoning boundary will remain as
is. Bahr seconded. On a roll call vote, the motion
carried unanimously on a 9-0 vote in favor.
KALISPELL Next, was a proposal by the City of Kalispell to amend
CITY AIRPORT the Kalispell City -County Master Plan on approximately
NEIGHBORHOOD 480 acres. This Master Plan Amendment is known as
PLAN the Kalispell City Airport Neighborhood Plan. The area
is generally bounded by US Highway 93 and 3rd Avenue
East on the east; Ashley Creek and 1/4 mile west of
Airport Road on the west; approximately 1/4 mile north
of the airport on the north; and approximately 1/4 mile
south of the airport on the south.
Staff Report Parsons deferred the report to David Greer.
David Greer, Montana Planning Consultants, presented
the Kalispell City Airport Neighborhood Plan which was
presented as a draft in February 1993. The plan
objective is to develop safety design standards for the
city airport, to identify the physical boundaries of
the airport, and to identify alternative land use
opportunities for surrounding properties. The
objective was not to determine whether to have an
airport or not, but to evaluate what would be required
for the airport to remain. The driving force behind
the neighborhood plan was how to accomodate an airport.
He reviewed the goals and strategies contained within
the plan. The ball fields will be relocated. He has
been in contact with all the adjacent property owners
and users of the airport who are enthusiastic about the
identified improvements. The neighborhood plan would
need to be adopted by resolution.
Public Hearing Dana Severy, was in favor of the airport improvements
In Favor and revitalization of the adjacent lands. He
encouraged the City's long term committment to enhance
the airport to provide employment opportunities and
economic growth.
Lee Tower, operator of the City airport for 10 years,
�J was in favor of the plan, which is similar to the plan
drafted in 1979. Establishing criteria for a safety
zone is very beneficial.
12
Opposition No one spoke in opposition to the proposal. The public
hearing was closed.
Discussion Kennedy informed other Board members that City Council
held an informal meeting in April with interested
parties. There was considerable response, generally in
favor of moving forward with adopting the plan so that
decisions can be made. None of the neighbors
complained about the airport noise. The economic
benefit of upgrading the airport will generate greater
use. It is the busiest airport in the State. With
regard to the displacement of the recreational
services, City property to accomodate ball fields is
being pursued. The Board commended Mr. Greer on .the
plan which is long overdue, and recommended that the
City and County get on with the improvements.
Motion DeGrosky moved to recommend adoption of the Kalispell
City Airport Neighborhood Plan and forward it with a
resolution to the City Council and Board of County
Commissioners. Kennedy seconded. On a roll call vote
Bahr, Carlson, Kennedy, Sanders, DeGrosky, Fraser,
Hodgeboom, Lopp and Hash voted unanimously in favor of
adopting the Airport Neighborhood Plan.
OLD BUSINESS Parsons requested a further continuation of the North
NORTH MERIDIAN Meridian Neighborhood Plan until the July meeting.
PLAN
Motion Carlson moved to continue discussion of the North
Meridian. Neighborhood Plan until the July meeting.
Hodgeboom seconded. By acclaimation vote, all Board
members voted aye.
B-1 ZONE At last month's meeting, the B-1 Neighborhood Business
zone was discussed. It will be scheduled for public
hearing at the July meeting. There were a number of
people in the audience to listen to discussion of this
issue.
Brian Wood, read a letter received from Judy Bolla,
Marc Spratt and Linda Dry, property owners along Sunset
Blvd. offering several suggestions regarding the
business zone.
Board discussion focused on the importance of notifying
adjacent residential property owners in the B-1 zoning
areas, as it is a buffer zone between residential and
business designed to maintain the integrity of both
districts. Lopp felt a study session to review the
text was of paramount importance prior to a public
hearing. Considerable discussion ensued on whether to
1 ) hold a work session prior to a public hearing in order
to allow the public to respond to the text subject to
adoption. Board determined to take public input and
make changes at that time.
13
NEW BUSINESS Under new business, there will be four annexations on
the July meeting agenda, one zone change, the North
Meridian Neighborhood Plan and the public hearing on
the B-1 zoning district.
ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was
adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
�C"a
Therese Fox Hash, President E z eth Ontko, Recording Secretary
}
APPROVED:
14