06-13-786-13-78
Minutes of-5-9-78
Approved..
Pub li c Hearing:
"The Dawn .Addn. ".
The regular meeting of the Kalispell City -County
Planning Board, was held Tuesday, June. 13,.1978 at
7:30 p.m. in the Flathead County Courthouse East Small
Community Room, 723 5th. Avenue East, Kalispell, Mt.
Members Present:
James J. Thompson
Fran 011endike
Walter Griffin
Garmen Meadows
Dorothy Garvin
Jay Shropshire.
W. J. Lupton
Robert LeDuc
Ray Lyb e ck
Dale W. Hadrr
Others Present:
1 APO Staff Representative
James E. Mohn
16 Guests
The meeting of the Kalispell City -County Planning
Board, was called to..order by Acting President W. J.
Lupton at 7:35 p.m. Acting President Lupton tabled
the Zoning Commission portion of the meeting till last
Acting President Lupton called for additions or
corrections to the minutes of May 9, 1978. Walt
Griffin moved that the minutes stand approved as
mailed; seconded by Ray Lybeck: motion carried.
Acting President -Lupton welcomed the guests and
apologized for the change of rooms for the meeting.
Acting President Lupton explained the format for the.
public hearing and then called on Jim Mohn to present
the proposal, The Dawn Addition.
Jim Mohn explained that the Planning Board Members
had received prior to the meeting, everything except
that portion of the Staff Report, which began with
I. Design' -Evaluation, which he proceeded to read.
After the Staff Summary, Jim read the Outline of
Covenants for the Dawn Addition. President Haarr-
arrived during the reading of the Covenants. Jim
then turned the meeting back to the Board.
The Board questioned whether there was any proposal
to zone this area, and if so, what, Jim.indicated
that none had been requested at this time, and that
.the.bnly zone that could apply because of the various
land uses would only be RA-1. The Board reaffirmed
that RA-1 would require sewer and Jim advised that
if an individual wished to pursue that you could also
recommend that sewer line be required.
The Board wished to know why there was such a deviation
from the 2 d.u.p.a, as indicated in the Comprehensive
Plan. Jim indicated that he felt this higher density
would make an ideal buffer for the transition. He
felt that this could be the community core adjacent
to.and utilizing the Evergreen School facilities due
to the fact that a pretty sizeable piece of ground.
He then proceeded to explain that the trend'for that
1.
i
'particular area was commercial and with the two
adjacent parcels, which probably were being held
for commercial purposes, by beginning the transition,
a buffer could be established. The Board felt there
.would be nothing wrong with single family resi-
dential there, bringing out that they didn't.
that it was not that intense of a development
that it needed a buffer via a compromise.
'They were concerned about putting that kind of
density on ground where there was no sewer available,
on that small lots, running into problems with
sewers, parking, etc.
The Board questioned the park requirement and Jim
advised that the Park Board recommended taking one
lot to satisfy the park requirement. Jim advised
that the requirement was somewhere close to 27,000
sq. ft. and the lots started at 20,000 to 25,000
sq. ft. Jim advised that the Park Board had no
preference as to which lot would be used.
Jim Thompson questioned whether the road should be
built out to Laalle at time of construction or
J whether it was an optional thing. Jim Mohn advised
that he meant it to be a requirement, that the
developer build the road. This was questioned by
the developer who was advised that the hearing
would presently be opened up for public participation
Jim Mohn stated that assuming that the development
went multi -family, without children, looking at
224 vehicle trips per day in and out of the -\
subdivision and did not feel that he could justi-
fy funneling all that traffic onto Sleepy Hollow
Road before getting out to LaSalle. Jim Mohn
proposed the road along the south boundary and
indicated that he had received no comments back
from the Montana State Highway Department on the
preliminary plat as submitted.
Garmen Meadows indicated that he had a conflict
of interest and would not therefore vote on this
proposal, but stated that the property, which was
out in front was being acquired by the developer
at the same time and because of the cost could not
feasibly include the LaSalle frontage into that
plan and this would also relate,to the 60` road
coming out onto LaSalle. This proposal could build
a lot of tax base for the Evergreen School District
without students utilizing the school. The lot
size could be increased to accommodate the septic
systems if more ground was required, rather than
going to single family residential. Under the
park requirement where there would be no school
age children, and with the economics involved,
the developer would prefer to pay cash -in -lieu of
land dedication.
Questioned was the tight restriction of occupants
having children. Brought out was the fact that
the courts have challenged this restriction.
Dean Marquardt, Engineer for the proposal, stated
2
that a number of the things thati Jim Mohn had
stated were pertinent to the proposal, as well as
those points reiterated by Garme-n--Meadows The
value of the land is such that it couldn't be
developed for single family use, and the land was
high because the most obvious use was for.commercial
development, which is the way most of the land was
being developed and a multi -family buffer between
single family residential and commercial is
considered to be a good planning practice. He
indicated that the density of development of course
would depend upon the State Department of Health
and County Sanitarian. He indicated that he had no
objection to the pedestrian walkway .going between
the lots to the north. However the matter of
providing an access to LaSalle did present an
expensive alternative and the developer would
probably be reluctant to do it and if required the
project possibly would not be feasible. As for the
structions against children, he indicated that it
was being effectively enforced in many trailor parks,
which are basically rental units. There is a basic
need for this type of development.
One of the landowners wished to know what the
difference was between a dead end road which is just
extended only to end in another dead end. Dean
replied by explaining that although it was a dead
end it would still have a cul-de-sac to turn around
in.
Jim Thompson wished to know if it was feasible to
-use a multi -family as a buffer up against a school
district and then restrict it from children, whereas
the children still have to go through it to go to
school. Dean felt that most of the children would
be coming up .from the south area and continue to
be and the streets could provide them a good access
to the school. The Board felt this would be a good
place for children to live with easy access to the
school.
The Board also wished to know that if they approved.
the proposal with that 290' strip of highway
property, were they promoting commercial strip
development,along LaSalle? Dean Marquardt indicated
that he believed that area would go commercial no
matter what was approved. With that as a response
it was suggested that perhaps as long as that
property was that valuable, perhaps the entire piece
should go commercial. Dean still felt that this was
a better use of the property, even with the aceess
to La lle, although perhaps that wouldn'be be
economically feasible.
When the prise of the lots was questions, the
Board was advised that circumstances would dictate
one being whether the developers could pay cash in
lieu of land for park dedication, then the price
could be lower, if commercial frontage is lost because
of access the price would be appreciably higher and
- 3.
and then the number of units which can be placed on the
property as accepted for sanitary reason Lots
h
could range anywhere between $.IQ,00.0..ta 0,000 a pieces
The Board wished to know what the lots would sell for
res..,i,dentially if used as, single family, to which. Dean
responded roughly $7,500... The developer indicated it
would cost roughly $2,500 to level the lots off what
with cuts and fills for commercial and residential,
Walt Griffin was also concerned about the soil capability
due to"the fact that the soils -classification was loam and
was severe for construction, moderate'for roads and
septi:cs due to flooding or ponding and load -bearing
capabity.
Walt was: also concerned about the fact that the Evergreen
Area had very few parks except school grounds and a park
was a requirement for any residential area even without
children, as, parks were far peop ez no, just for residents,
a county park dedicated to 'the" public, He was, also
concerned about the cul.d.e7sac problem, which is paramont
in Evergreen and, that there should be some acces's. to
LaSalle even at a cost He also felt that the families
with children was where the need was', not for individuals
in the higher income bracket, and therefore these needs are
for apartment units:, but not as restrictive as these,
Tf the return for the property is that extravagant then
perhaps this was not the best use for it,
Bill Lupton then opened th-e hearing to the public cQmme.nt
Robert Stewart stated that ',Mr. Evans was unable to
attend, his neighbor, but that he had lived at the
location for 10 years and it-h.ad.been peaceful and quiet
and this would put quite 4 burdon that.th.at quiet on those
who work at night,
g "S'leepy Hollow: Road was very narrow
and not very wTdll constructed, so would have to be
resurfaced.
Mr. Stewart stated there were 56 families out there and
the soil was poor and s,-tated that the gentlemen had
said 9 7,. 10 x, to water out there but in fact it was 32"
to: the top of his, well casing', and he had two wells
one of which was 42" and the otherI-V, which had never
gone dry,, so if septic tanks were installed their would
be right within line .of the drainfield, and if that
property wasnE't sold yet held like an option on it for
a long tim and guaranteed it wouldn"t,.be developed
within his lifetime.,He als:o.stated that the people.
in the are were dead set against Multi, ;fazn,ly units
Mr. Tngram indicated that it was, said that infants
could be born there and live there till school age
and wished to :know, if 'the parents. and child could be
kicked out when they reached school age
Mr. Stewart 'was also wandering about the park and
felt there should.be one there and was., advised that
the land was just too valuable for pasture. so it
was necessary to sell it out to, do whatever they
wanted to with it.
4.
Larry Arsland lives at the junction of .Cottonwood
and Sleepy Hollow and was wondering about the roads
as the traffic was steady and they did need paving
but was advised there were no figures available that
could substantiate the need.
Dick Toft, farmer, who had farmed the area for about
five years said that there was no way in the world
of keeping out the children, and wondered whether
there were any plans at all for the continuation of
the dead end Sleepy. Hollow. He said that by drawing
in a 10' pedestrian easement, which goes through his
land and to the school, so rather than have that
he would rather have a 60' street.
Mr. Toft was advised that the plan was submitted but
the extensions of the streets, etc. were more or
less left up to the Staff, and would have no
objection to extending Sleepy Hollow to the west of
the property line or it could be extended to the
north. He came more or less to listen to see what
he could do with his 72 acres behind it.
The Board inquired as to whether the 10' easement
was right down his east property line and Mr. Toft
agreed it was.
Fran 011endike wished to know if it were feasible to
extend it on north and out a different way and come
out on LaSalle. Jim Mohn indicated he had not
talked to -anyone about a different route.
Mrs. Bauman indicated that they owned Lot 3 on
LaSalle and were concerned because they were
downhill of the proposed development and had a
shallow well. Prefer that it be used for housing
rather than commercial and would prefer to see the
multi -family units- limited to duplexes or else
zoned for some but not all. Concerned about what
could be put onto that portion, which is being
discussed as commercial.
Dean Marquardt advised that the developer had not
even acquired that property.
Mrs. Bauman questioned whether "there was any zoning
proposed and the Board advised that there was.no
zoning on or adjacent to the property, and that
(should the.property be zoned it would only be that
property which was proposed and would not affect
hers.
The Board then discussed the elimination of the cul-
de-sac and extending the road out to LaSalle, and
the fact that the proposal would probably still
contain the same -amount of lots.
Dean Marquardt stated that there had been very few
hearings which he attended where individuals did not
object to increased traffic and questioned the
feasibility of county maintenance of a road where
5...
there really was a small area being serviced and
the road would only be used for about 10% of its
capability. He felt that a road that carried
200 vehicles a day when it was capable of carrying
2,000 vehicles was a waste of the resources.
He felt that Sleepy Hollow Road was capable of
.carrying at least 1,500 vehicle trips a day
ecnomically.
Dean Marquardt then addressed the sewage and septic
problems and related them to the 208 Study
which indicated that there was no evidence of
significant increase or deteriotion of water in the
Evergreen Area.
Dean then addressed the comments that Walt Giffin
made regarding soils capabilities and stated that
these soils were undoubtedly agricultural soils
and when a farmer puts a road in it could create
problems, but in an urban residential area
atmosphere that classification as developed accord-
ing to county specifications does not have those
limitations.
One other resident stated that four years
previously Sleepy Hollow Road had been resurfaced
because it was .rutty and when wet bottomless.
Bill Lupton then closed the comments from the
floor opening the hearing to comments and dis-
cussion by the Board, and advised the public
that their recommendations were by no means final
but that their recommendations were made to the
County Commissioners, who either approved or
disapproved the proposal.
When some of the adjacent landowners inquired
as to the availability of some of that land for
sale, Garmen Meadows explained that the owners had
come to him and set a price and he proposed the
best land use for that figure and he felt that this
type of use was more compatible with the regular
use of the land rather than a mobile home court
or commercial sales, including a proposed access
onto LaSalle. The property was being sold subject
to the approval of this proposed concept. The
original plan was for 12 lots and the engineer
proposed 14 but if the Sanitation Department
proposed it could go back to 12 economically.
He also advised that some of the appraisors indi-
cated that this type of. proposal would not
adversely affect adjacent properties whereas others
indicated that it would increase the tax base.
Mr.'Meadows also indicated that if a lot were
dedicated to the County as a park it would
probalby never be developed as a park, but
sold for more than the law would allow under the
park requirement, via cash -in -lieu of.
N
The Board then toyed with the idea of setting a
stipulation that lend taken f or pa.xk. puxrpas..es
remain forver as park land. Jim indicated that
it made a.difference as to whether you take land
for park or deed land to the county for parks and
that under deeding of the land it remains as a park.
Walt Griffin felt that the land is very limited in
the Evergreen Areas as to parks and also felt that
when land is requested as park dedication that it
actually be used as a park. Fran 011endike stated
that she had understood at a previous meeting that
the Park Board did want the land in order to use it
in the future as a barter to secure other lands or
as a trade.`
The Board questioned armen by asking him if this
proposal was turned down and the price that was
set on the land was so high, and that it required
mulli-family in order to be economical, therefore
the asking price should be such as to accommodate
the single family. Garmen advised that other
people would pay the price, leaving him out of
the picture and it still wouldn't be single family
Jim advised that roughly a year previously the
entire piece with the idea of developing it into a
mobile home park or subdivision, but after
discussing it with the landowner, said it would
have to be the mobile home park as that would be
the only thing to justify a return for investment,
whereby Jim explained the pitfalls of a mobile
home park proposal, whereby it was dropped, Jim
then indicated it would have to be either this
multi -family proposal or commercial.
Fran 011endike still maintained that it was not
appropriate to place a large development such as
this .so.close to the school and then forbid
children. Then Robert LeDuc concurred that this
restriction.'was not right and Garmen indicated that
the buyer would be willing to eliminate this
restriction if the Board felt it within the reins
of good planning. Garmen stated that with this
type of unit, the four-plex, are usually limited
to two bedroom units, which would not be feasible
for individuals with children, and felt this was
not the type of individual housing.
Jim Mohn then discussed some of the road construct-
ion standards as presented by the State Hwy Dept.
and County Road Dept.
Ray Lybeck stated that he had witnessed.the
construction of a road into an agricultural piece
of land, which he had previously leased, and
which was now being cut up into 10+ acre pieces
for homes and.felt that after seeing that he felt
that this proposal for cluster development was the
only way to.really preserve the outer portions of
the county and still accommodate those people
,needing housing.
Ray Lybeck intended to use the Staff recommendations
in making a motion but questioned the 60' road and
access to LaSalle and the Board also was now aware
that any recommendation that they submitted
would bear on what Mr. Toft, adjacent landowner
of 72 acres, did with his land. Therefore there
was considerable discuss on:
..road access and acquisition of adjacent
properties for access or alternatives,
..multi -family around a cultural core,
..commercial possibilities being compatible
with multi -family,
..economics as they related to the community
advantage,
..Failure of septics under multi -family use
and the necessity for city sewer
Land the alternatives:
..commercial complex or any type of apartment
complex that could go in without the
Board's review or approval,
The Board wished to know what Mr. Meadows would do
if this problem were referred to the Staff in
order to furnish a Master Plan Study for the area
including road transportation; etc.
Mr. Meadows felt that the time frame was set up
on the program of approval and no time frame
extension could be expected for the buyer on his
buy -sell agreement.
Ray Lybeck moved to approve this proposal with the
Staff's recommendation except where it stipulates
60' access to be provided to LaSalle Road - that an
additional through road be constructed through the
project. Walt Griffin stated a through road
wouldn't get him out of there, but a road would
have to be planned as to where it was to go. The
Board felt that there should be an access from the
cul-de-sac to the west as well as a road to
LaSalle. The Board then again discussed the access.
Jim hompson felt that this proposal was definitely
going against the adopted Comprehensive Plan and it
was obvious that it was not compatible with zoning
as far as sewer.
Jim Mohn reread the motion indicating that the
provisions be made for through access to connect
the west property line with LaSalle. Seconded by
Walt Griffin indicated that all
the Staff recommendations pertained, to the
motion and the Board agreed, and the road i
provision for through access was to be included.
The zoning and park were not included within the
motion.
The Board sounded vocally as though it were split
8.
,
on the motion for approval. Ray Lybeck was asked
-to amend his motion, but advised that he believed
:it was not necessary, but the motion was amended
,by Walt Griffin to include RA-1 zoning even
without the benefit of sewers, which'is what is
.required under this type of zoning. Garmen
indicated that was one of the reasons they had not
submitted zoning because RA-1 did require sewers,
which were unavailable. By adding this amendment
.it didn't mean you had to vote for the motion or
the amendment.
The Board felt that the motion should be reread in
order that all understood exactly what was being
.expressed. Garmen wished to know if the Staff had
an opinion as to the park situation and Jim
indicated that he had advised the Park Board to
accept money -in -lieu, but they wanted the land,
Ray's motion read, that the planning board
recommend approval with the following conditions:
1. that water and sewer systems be approved by
the State Dept. of Health and Environmental
Sciences andFlathead County Sanitarian,
2. that Covenants be expanded as per outline
attached,
3.- that: a.) a 60' access be provided to LaSalle
Road from this site, and
b.) the pedestrian access be provided
along the lot line common to
Lots 3 & 4,
4. that the developer strongly consider
acquisition of the balance of the tract
(1H, 4-28-21) and inclusion of this balance
in.a subsequent submittal on the same concept,
5. that provisions be made for r/w extension to
the west property line,
6. that developer petition for RA-1 and then
Jim Thompson indicated that the developer
put in stub sewer lines at least from the
house to the street, which would clarify the
intent, (or a dry collector system where
everything is all in except it is capped)
although Jim indicated they had never gotten
anyone to put them in, and
7. accept cash -in -lieu of park.
The Board then discussed storm drainage and where
all this water.would be direct; the motion was
seconded by Dale Haarr.
I
Chair called for a vote which was a tie 4.,to
4 with the Chair breaking the tie and voting
against.
Budget, Fiscal 1978-79.
J1 Jim advised that h.e Wi.11 present this ,fact to
,'the County Commissioners, that the motion was
:denied, stating all the conditions for denial.
Walt Griffin felt there should be an additional
motion stating the conditions of the denial.
Jim Thompson entertained a motion for denial
with reasons, that the Board felt a study should
be done of the entire area, rather than just the
one little spot, Jim Thompson felt that a re-
planning based on a good Comprehensive Plan was
needed as it exceeded the density for the area,
because.of lack of facilities.
Walt Griffin moved to deny the proposed subdivision
as proposed on the basis of:
1. That the development was not in compliance
with the adopted Kalispell Comprehensive Plan;
as it exceeded the recommended dwelling units
per acre density,
/,2. that the planning profile for the road system
and land use in conjunction with that
Comprehensive Plan and the zoning of that
area with respect to public facilities being
available are insufficient at this time; and
that we further recommend that,
3. the Staff provide the Board with additional
data to allow the Board to better plan the
area.
''Seconded by Jim Thompson: motion carried
unanimously, with Garmen Meadows abstaining.
Jim explained the Budget and that the Board had
$2,110 last year and spent $193.00 leaving a
balance of $1,917..00 for the 1978-79 Budget.
1973 was the last time the Planning Board was
budgeted for. Jim advised that usually the
Board carried the unexpended Budget from year to
year. Jim Thompson indicated that the money
should be retained in case they needed some
zoning maps done professionally on a printed
bais. Dorothy Garvin was questioning the costs
of printing involving the new zoning. Dale Haarr
felt the money should be turned back in, but the
balance of the Board felt that it should be
retained in case of need. Walt Griffin stated
that should the Board have a 0 Budget, he
would be able to approach the Kalispell City
Council and lay before them any expenditures
that might be incurred by the planning
i
board.
Jim Thompson moved that the unexpended budget
I be approved as presented: seconded by Ray Lybeck.
10.
Subdi.viaion Proposals;
(June `27., 1978)
Buffalo Head,
Hartt Hill
ee/8-1-78
Jim Mohn presented the subdivisions, Hartt Hill
and Buffalo Head, which were to be heard by
Public Hearing at the Board's June 27, 1978
meeting. The board discussed the two proposals,
as to location, intended use, conflicts of
interest, compatibility to adjacent land uses,
zoning and amount of data to be furnished by
the Staff.
Being no further business the Board moved
directly to the business pertaining to the
Zoning Commission.
PRESIDENT, Acting
Bill Lupton
SECRETARY,
11.
,Vrfy\ J
We, the undersigned, members of the Kalispell City County Planning
Board, do hereby.waive notice of meeting and consent that a
meeting of the Board be held on Tuesday, June 13, 1978 at 7:30 p.m.
at the Courthouse East, 723 5th. Avenue East, Kalispell, Montana.
I� All