Planning Board Minutes March 14, 1995KAL I SPEL L CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING
MARCH 14, 1995
CALL TO ORDER The regularly scheduled meeting of the Kalispell City --
AND ROLL CALL Count y Planning Board and Zoning Commission was called
to order at 7 : O7 p.m. by President Therese Hash, Board
members present were Pam Kennedy, Fred y Hodgeboom, Milt
Carlson, Bob Sanders; Walter Bahr, Bob Lopp, and
Therese Hash. Mike DeGrosky and Michael Fraser were
absent (excu's-ed), The .:Flathead Regional Development
Office was • represented 'by Steve Herbal y, Planning
Director and John Parsons., senior Planner, Brian Wood,
Zoning Administrator represented the City of Kal ispel 1 .
There were approximately 60 people in attendance.
APPROVAL OF The minutes, of the February 14, 1995 meeting were
MINUTES approved as submitted on a motion by :Lapp, second by
Bahr. All members present voted aye.
P•a.rs ons read f or the b.ene.f it of the audience a
memorandum handed out to the Board members from himself
regarding .the. Buf.fal o Commons PUD, requesting that the
public hearing on this case be continued until the
April .11, 1.995 meeting to allow the City Attorney an
opportunity to conclude hi.s review of the terms and
conditions proposed to protect and maintain the
integrity of the plan, as per Section 27.21.020(2)(e)
of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning
Commission is required to, but- cannot, make this
f.i.nding,- therefore this precludes � the • Commission from
making a recommendation on the requested PUD,
_ Hash asked Parsons if this were just one . finding?
Parsons responded that yes, it was, but it is a
required finding. ..Hash noted -that, since there were a
number of people in attendance for this matter, could
the public . hearing be held, take -public comment and
leave the matter open? Parsons said that the public
hearing could be opened for taking public comment,
however, in the past, the Board has been concerned
about .time lapses between taking public comment and
taking action.
Discussion The Board was asked their feelings on this matter.
Kennedy . f el•t that' it was unfortunate .that the city
attorney has not done a complete review on this, and
,.wi.t.h the number of people in attendance, she favored
holding a public hearing, then continuing it to the
next meeting, if this is a requirement which must be
met. Hodgeboom favored taking public comment, keeping
.the public hearing open so that additional comment can
be taken at the April meeting. Lop.p agreed that due to
the complexity of this proposal, there is a fair
1
r, probability that we not only continue the public
hearing, but holed preliminary discussion this evening,
since. it is a very large project. He would not be
comfortable rubber stamping either the proposal or the
recommendat z on . f rom FRDO . The general consensus was to
continue with the public hearings as listed on the
agenda.
GATEWAY The first public hearing was on a request by GESN ,
ORCHARD Inc ; , "I or preliminary plat appr-ov.al to .res.ubdivide 31
VILLAS townhouse lots on 7 parent lots into 24 townhouse lots
PRELIMINARY on the 7 parent lots ..Th-e sites are located in Gateway
PLAT orchard villas Subdivision on sunburst Court, Lambert
Court and Jubilee court on the west, side of Glenwood
Drive north of Two Mile Drive.' The parent lots are
described'' as Lots 5, 5 , 7, 8, lO , 1.3 r 1.5 . of Gateway
Orchard villas in the SE4 of the NE4 of Section 12,
T28N, R22W. P.M.M.., Flathead C-ounty.
Staff Repast Parsons presented. FRDO Subdivision Report #KPP-- 95 -o 2 .
Staff reviewed the request and based on the .evaluation
- of the necessary criteria., recommended that the amended
preliminary plat of Lots 5, 6, 7 , 8 , 10 , 13 , and 15 of
Gateway orchard Villas for townhouse development be
approved.
Public Hearing The public hearing was- opened, to those in favor of the
request.
In Favor Doug Kaufman-, Thomas, Dean & Hoskins, representative.
f or ..the developer, �expl.ained that this is an . extension
of the previous subdivision, and because of the
favorable market reaction to that subdivision, the
'developer decided -to realign the lot lines as proposed.
There were no other speakers either in favor or in
opposition 'to the- proposal. The public hearing was
cl.os.ed; and it . was opened to Board discussion.
Motion Kennedy moved to adopt report #KPP-95-02 as findings of
fact, and recommend approval of the amended ..p at -f or
Lots'' 5 , .61 7, 8, to , 13, and 15 of Gateway Orchard
Villas. Carlson . seconded. On a roll call vote
Carlson, Kennedy, Bahr, Hodgeboom, sanders, Lopp, and
.-Hash voted unanimously_ in favor.
Therese Hash declared a conflict of interest -on the
next two agenda i tems...and stepped . dawn from the . Board.
vice -chair Pain Kennedy presided.
B IRK Kennedy introduced the request by Tim Birk for
ANNEXAT ICON.. & annexati on '' and an initial- zone of R- 4 (Two Family
ZONE ,CHANGE Residential) upon.. annexation . into the . O.ity of
RW-1 TO R-4 Kalispell. The property is presently zoned County R-1
(Suburban Residential). The site is approximately 12
acres located west of Kalispell on the east side , of
2
Hathaway Lane, southwest of Creenbriar Subdivision, and
is more particularly described as Assessors Tracts 5A,
SIB, 6E, and 6CB in the SW4 of Section 12, T28N, R22W,
P.M.'M., Flathead County,
Staff Report Parsons announced that since the writing of the staff
report, new information has come to light, that a
recommendation for denial of zoning cannot be based on
a development proposal. The recommendation of denial
for this zone in this particular location was based on
a subdivision proposal, which is scheduled for the next
public hearing. That is not a decision that I would
have a tendency to agree with, but it is adjudicated to
that end. As a result, I am amending my staff report.
Parsons presented report 4KA-95-2, as amended, which
recommended approval of the requested city zone, and
denial of annexation.
On page 2, under the first criterion, in the 2nd
paragraph, delete the last two sentences, and the
remainder of that section.
On page 4, under Will the Requested Zone ^Avoid Undue
Concentration of People. The 3rd' sentence, add a
phrase -s f ol'l ows : Infra -structure exists or can be
provided, at the Cit ' s discretion unless annexed which
supports the proposed zone. Under the next criterion,
at the end of the 1st sentence, add if the property is
annexed.
Delete the discussion on page 5, and the recommendation
reads: It is recommended that -the Kalispell City -
County Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt this
staff report as findings of fact and forward a
favorable recommendation to 'City Council for the
requested zone, if annexed. The last sentence would be
deleted.
Questions Lopp clarified for the audience that the Board deals
with the zoning as one item and deals with the
subdivision request as a second item. Secondly, he
asked John when was this issue adjudicated? And when
was it brought to our attention? Parsons responded
that he was not familiar with the specific cases. He
found out about it this afternoon, that initially Bill
Astle' brought it'to his attention. He conferred with
Steve Herba 1 y c'onoerning the issue, and that is when I
decided to change the staff report. I have not had a
chance to research the cases involved, so I do not know
if the specifics of the case are the same. Lopp
pointed out that it is tough on the public to react to
a reversal like this without having a copy of the text,
and agreed it was tough for staff, as well.
Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the
zone request, only.
3
In Favor Bret Birk, Kalispell, said that he feels the zone
change ,request is justified, because it borders land
'that' has a s-imil•ar zone,
Tim .B.irk-,...contract .purchases for the property,. _Said the
property belongs to the Daniels. He is in favor of the
proposed annexation and zoning of the property as
requested 'for the' following reasons: (1) the property
;is a 'logical -.extension of the city of Ral i.spel 1; (2) it
'_is"'general l y • donsiste'nt with the city and county master
plan for the area; (3) ..the _ pr.operty is close to city
services and commerci a.l facilities; (4) this proposal
w_i 11.- .;Pr.ovi_de..':mode.rate ..inc.ome.. -housing In-the..Ra.l.ispel 1
area-, The major cone e-rn that was raised in the review
is as •fol 1 ows : (1) ..there .i.s no re-servation of easement
f or ' the p.i.. opus ed Hwy 3 bypass through the proposed
subdivision, I - "feel , -that the .zoning and annexation
appl ioation 'should not be'approved or denied, because
.of speci•f i.c -details. -in -the..subdivision proposal , it
should be- bas ed' on the county mas t er p l•an for. the area.
} access .to .the -property needs to be' exp.anded and the
northern part•i. on may not be available as an access, and
sugge.s.ts a second access to the 'property, My ..response.
to that, is that I feel • that these types of issues
shou.l d be named as' conditions to o c omp l.i ance ._.and .f i l ed
with final plat of the subdivision, if these conditions
are found to be in the best interests of the public.
The proposed zoning that I am asking for 'is
,approximately 20 of what the maximum density in the
area can be. I feel that it would be a good buffer
area between RA--1 that we have on one side of the
property., and the suburban tracts on the other side.
I feel that the FRDO ..staff .is gene.ra.l.ly in _.favor of the
proposed subdivision ft
No one else spoke in favor of the zone request. The
pub lei a • he"6r•ing '-was opened to those in oppos i.t.ion .
Opposition. Dan Johns.., 431 1st Ave West., Kalispell, an attorney
with Murphy ,..,Rob.i.ns on ,,..H.eckathorn and . P..hi.l-..l i p•s , Is here
on behalf of Larry and Valerie Parsons, who own the
property- that. adjoins- this proposal- to.the west across
Hathaway Lane and borders the entire western boundary.
The Parsons .own apprax.i.ma.tel y to acres, and have a nice
single family home on it. It is zoned R-1 , which is
the same ..as the property- . under consideration. The
Parsons are out of state, but .requested that Mr. Johns
read. a -letter into the. rec-ord, which mixes .the zoning
in with the subdivision. proposal, however it is
impossible'to separate the two, [He handed out a
l otter written.. by Mr. Larry Parsons to- board members
�-� and -a -co--is --attached -as, a• -part of .the minutes. He
3 pointed out that the app►1 i catl on requests an R- 4 zone
and .30 dupl ex -1 ots 0, when you. 1ook -at -the EnVi ronmenta 1
Assessment of the impacts ; whether is' it -sewage f low,
water -requirements, traf fi.c f low, . everything is set f or
2
50 single family' residential -lots. The zoning p rerliii i.»s
dup.l.exes , so you � ne.ed to . •doub.l e , .tho-s a amp.acts . The
issue on traffic 1,s a real grave concern. If you put
a1.1, that ..tra.f•fic -_in 'this subdivision, ri-ght now ..the
only exit is through Hathaway Lane, which is a county
r.oa d.. about ..ha If way up _t_h.ro.ugh , the ..s.ubdl. vi s i on . It is
not a public road at the north entrance., and Mr. Birk
.made reference to that. It is private, It has never
been accepted by the county as a county road, so there
is going to need to be a significant change in the
design of the subdivision.. To the west you have
reenbria ' 'subdivision., which is R-4 . `1'o the east is
the Pack property that is RA-1. To the south, most of
that property .is owned by the Crowe .family and that is
R--1 , to the north is R-1 , to the west the Parsons'
property .is also R--1 . , what .we submit that they are
trying to do is put a round peg in a square hole. It
is a , nice .piece of . ground, but 100 residential units
don't fit on that ground. You can't get in and out
effectively* we .submit. the request be.:denied, that the
Y
.
zoning be appropriate to the area. I have also been
that .,there .nay have...,he-en- -sore contact.. made and
.-advised
some word 'spread concerning that if there is a de ' ia1
of _this application, it :may constitute a "taking". I
strongly disagree with such a statement. If the
government is . taking . somebody's property or their
r
economic interest in the property, basically what they
'
would be doing i•s - -- l et s say they are taking :your RA-
1 and cutting you back to an R- 1, then_ it is possible
.that 'it is a takin.g.. But, this developer is asking for
a zone for an economic benefit.. By retaining the
oning that is . there, now, you are not -taking ._anythin.g
away from him. I am surprised at the staff ' s chang'i... in
...recommendation. I .,have learned tonight that anytime I
have a proposal, 11 I can call theme in the of ternoon.
and "'Cite some authority, they wi 1.1 change their
recommendation without call ing . thei'r . attorneys.''' I
would expect the ' .st of f to ..make -contact with their
counsel and find, but ' i f the case is cited, and find
that is what 'th.e'principles -they've enu.iated stand for
and that it applies in this case. We request that you
stay .with the R--.1.
Brett Katsiff , 577 .Two Mile Drive, stated he is in
.oppositionto the z..oning change to R-4,. and agrees 100%
with the statements previously presented..
T.if.fany Katsiff, 577 Two Mile .Drive, and she agrees
with the previous speakers, and is opposed' to the zone
.change.
�-� Stanley Gross, 40 Hathaway Lane, owns the property just
�. south. of ..L-ar.ry Parsons, and very close to the .area
under guest.-i one, and he agrees wholeheartedly with what
.Mr. Johns, -.said- [He_.submitt-ed a letter wof. his c.onc.e_rns
whit' h. are attached as a part of the minutes.],
6r
Sheryl Hester, 100 Hathaway Lane,. adjoining the
propps.ed subdivision, ..and she is in opposition too the
requested zone change.'
Eleanor Hedstrom,, 75 Hartt Hill Drive, agrees with Mr.
Johns an'is apposed to the .zone change,
Russ Marks, 30 Hathaway Lane, which is south of this
proposal, said., he . and his wife are whol e-he.artedly
opposed to the zone change. This the reason that they
just.had his •father subdivide his .property so- that ..they
could have an 1. 1/ 4 acre tract to put their new home
there .
Don.a.l d Crowe, 1471 Hwy 2 West, lives- on' the south
-border, of this —development., and he ..objects to the
rezoning, It 1.-s crowded enough as i't i s . Highway 2 is
.almost impossible.
Kim Ross, 1468 Hwy 2 West, is opposed to the zone
change.
Pat Wells, 1479 Hwy 2 West, and she who 1 e-hearted. y
supports. Mr., Johns' a.nd..Mr. . [.Larry] Parsons' comments,
She is opposed to the zone change. -
Bob Cole,. 1,47.0 .Hwy 2. Vest ,. s-aid .that he was part of the
zoning process in the ' 8o ' s when they tried to address
unc_ont ro l led growth .-a.round t-he valley. we came -t o the
Planning commi.s s i on and as-k ed to be zoned, and we
...cooperated with the zoning, . and .now it. ..s..eems that
peopl e want to change. .the -zone we are very apposed to
.that . e .. entered.. into a c-ontract with y.ou f o 1 k.s [.the
gove_.rning ' bodi es ] , and we expect that contract to be
honored.
Bill Wells, 1479 Hwy 2 West, he is opposed to the zone.
change.
Gary Crowe, attorney in Kalispell,- whose' business is
..located at.,... 30 5th street .E.ast .. He ..r•epres.ents a, number
of the residents who are affected by this proposed zone
change, - specifically my pa.rents , Lion. -and Patricia.
Crowe, 1 471 Hwy 2 West. Where were many very good
poi .ts that were brought ..f art.h. by the w.ri t.ten statement
from Mr. Larry Parsons, but perhaps. two of. the most
important that I. be1 ieve this . ommis.s.ion. should Io.cus
on are the aspects of keeping the continuity of the.
area . . Mr Johns.. hi t.. on thy. s . i.n. c 1 os.i.ng , ,.and Mr... Birk
who 'is'"" :one of two people who spoke '.n favor of i t ,
hasica.l.ly his'
:._.r. argument. Digressing, I believe there must be some
_.find. of re at-ionsh�.p -b-et�een the -two- �i r�s who" spore �.n
..� f a .o... t .. . � .. _ ..The p a �. r� �� . _ � �. �. t I �r .� u l d ' 1 " k e ..t o .. ; b �
forth."1. 9`that w.e haVer .-three--quarters of 'the .af•fected
area's perimeter that is zoned R-1 . On the north side ,.
5
the Phillips' property and- the Hester property. Can the
west, -the Parsons' property ..and ..on the south, an
approximate 10 - acre parcel owned by Don and Patricia
Crowe.. ..The -.eastern is .-di.v.ided by a -couple of
owners, one of them is Ron. Pack. ..As you know all so
.well , he, 'because of, neighborhood opposition, wa�th.drew
his proposal at -this time. There i s a reason why he
withdrew his proposal, and there cannot be a better
corollary or a better situation for comparison than a
_round peg ..in .a square ..ho l.e . Absolutely, the .-argument
that is offered by Mr. Birk in primary support of his
c.ont.ention is -that he wanted to ..establish a buffer
zone. Ac-tually, �it would be exactly the converse of
that a r.gument .
More importantly,' we are talking about a situation, -
where I am absolutely .-shocked. ..-Dan Johns stated it
perfectly. It shocks my conscience that this gentleman.
can get a phone ca 1.1 from Bi.l 1 As t l e this afternoon and
threaten adjudication., and you have a complete change,
.in the . recommendation .:and o.pini.on.. Ar-e we going to
make deci s.i on-s because of intimidation from attorneys?
If .you. want some intimidat.i.o,n.�_-from.:attorneys, then
..that's what we . ,can do f or a living, but that is not the
way I .:was taught to pract.i ce .1 aw . I was taught -to
practice law by applying the law to the facts. Not
,_.intimida.t.ion tactics. .That is what the wild west was
all about. That is not what the Kalispell planning
commission i-s al 1 about. ..If Bi 1.L Astle can make a call
at 4.: 00 , so can_ ' ban Johns, so can Gary Crowe, so can
...D.enn i s 11es t e r. But, quite frankly, we have more
r spent for this 'condition than to resort to those
ta.c.t.i cs .. I.. trust --that you -folks, as -honorable people
of thi s : ommi ssi on , are not going to be put "in the
position of intimidation to make a .decision as this
gentl errian was. certainl y, at minimum, you must ask for
an opinion from your . -city .. attorney, Glen Nei er .
Absolutely, this .is beyond argument. This shocks me
more than the proposal itself.
In addition, we have -a $212,000 investment in our
highway bypass. It i s going to go right through this
area, we, are talking about an alleged threat of
adjudication and Mr, J.ohns articulated, as well, the
threat of a- loss of property rights through this
zoning. Well, if we are going to talk about a loss of
property rights, are we going to talk about the 60
people .who are in this room against this project? Are
we going to talk_ about Mr. Daniels over here? In these
dec.i-lions , you must weigh' the competing- interests of
the var` bu�u and. r_ es'pective property owners. You have
a situation � here ' where clearly three -quarter's of the
- surrounding subject property is R-1 and everything has
been fine as -R--1. Nobody has come before and asked for
a_...z one ...6hang'-e ; 'uriti-l Mr. Daniels and Mr. Birk decided
they were going 'to maximize 'their 'persona'l profits.
7
This is based on motivation by financial gain.
F-i.nanci a l gain at the detriment to these 60 landowners .
How about these 60 persons' rights so that these people
can line -their pockets and walk? I would ask ,you to
consider that 7 5% of the perimeter of adjacent
landowners are R-1 and are comfortable with that
dl�ass i f i cat on and are asking you to keep not only
thei r property- 'R-1 , -but the rest of it R--1.. Obviously,
as a requirement for this zoning, it is going to be
annexed . You know. as well as I do, how the city of
Kali spe 1 l likes to annex property, and how Hathaway
Lane runs in a..north-south boundary. This is going to
affect many people who don't want to be annexed into
the city . it is not going to be cleverly carved out as
- M,ert Rani el Vs property, so if we are going to talk
about respective . property owners' rights how about
those who do not want to be annexed. How about al l of
your hard work., all of this ci ty' s ....hard work in the
1993 ''bypass program for $212,000?
B.aszcal 1 y, . R-1._is fine. .T.en resi_den,c.es.. are .acc.eptabl e ,
You have got to look at the other impacts. Have you
gone to ..the intersection of, .Hat.haway ::Lane and. Hwy 93?
Are you aware of Hartt Hill? Are you aware of the
truck traffic? Are you aware of ..the - automobi l e
addidents?,. In the DIL three days ago, there was a big
roll-over on Hartt Hz l l . There were no other . vehicles
involved What about 1.00 other families? what is
going . to be done ..about ...that approach ..and .that
intersection? Is' there going. to be a light? Who will
pay for that? who is going to ;pay for the .i.ncreased 90
"'-fee t' of- . appr6ach?- FUrthermore�, who is going to f oot
the bill' =for the goods and services that are going to
"be requi red ' i:n the surrounding area that this area is
going t,o a f f ect . Mir . .Birk has not designated -any park
whatsoever within this area. He says he going to use
a very -small portion in another area that he was
involved with. It is beyond question. I just can't
see where- this mak:es .any s ens-e whatsoever. You. have
two people speaking in favor of i t , both their. names
are Birk,-. and quite frankly, if you are looking for an
opinlo' i,' get an opinion from your city attorney, Let ' s
not. get ..an opinion from a .:telephone -c�.11 -from gill
Astl'e -at.. ..4 p., m. and completely. change your.
..r:ec ornmendat i dn. ,
David Phillips, 824 8th street West, and like Mr.
Crowe, said I ..am representing my...par.ents , ..L.o.uis and
Carol 'Phillips, who live at 672 Two Mile Drive. Not
wanting to belabor a- point, but .I think it is
inte'rest�.ng that. very often, . the city, in annexation
cases, ends up ,.:ann.exing something that -. is already
.r.....ex'ist a g-,-....w"he"ther t _ be w� a mobile home
.. next. to . a. nice
hC�ue, ar'hatevei�.*.. _..feu have .an opportunity to create
....a zoning ..bef�e .e ,.t .... ann'e'-a�t1`6—� ; �b .that i f � the area.. is
R-1, you -don'' t have to... neaessari l y put" 1.00. units next
to it . I got a kick out of Mr. Birk' s reference to a
buffer zone. That ...reminds me -of being in a. restaurant
where there is smoking ' and non-smoking-. This fell -ow is
smoking . a ,cigar .and he i.s . sitting at . a. t.ab.1 e . marked
smoking. The other fellow is at a non-smoking table,
but they are about a foot apart. That i,--s exact.1y .what
we will have out on Two Mile Drive My dad's property,
As ..in the g-reenbe 1 t, and it .has ..one ..house on
approximately 6 acres,. We are right. now next to
Greenbr.i ar . On, the .. s outh.....�s.ide would -be ..Greenhaven .
ou.r 6o' no1er'n', wi thout a park , i s our f ive acres going to
become his park? Mr . .Birk .verbally promised my dad a
four foot chain link fence along the west side of hi's
..property to keep that from happening with his previous
deve l opment '. ' . we' have yet to see i t , and we realize now
that perhaps a. verbal- agreement wasn't enough to solve
that problem. That's what we have when we bring a
buf f er .zone at _that. high a densi ty , . I f you 1 ook at the
development now at the way it runs, we already have a
buf f e r f r om the townhouses .and apartments J. down to what
he has at Greenbriar down to the greenbelt right next
door, If you use . that. excuse, you ..will just keep
stepping s-tone 'Two Mile Drive out Hwy 2 West. You can
always use that excuse - - that you need a buffer zone.
He can say I have 100 duplexes, I need a buffer zone .
That is not a 1.egi t imat a -argument.
'dalt'"Vaustance, and .his wife Stacie, live on Hwy 35,
and are here at the request of Larry parsons, to say we
are opposed to the zoning change.
Brandon Owens, 1930 Hwy 2 des-t , said he just bo.ug.ht .-his
_~propert'y ' l ast year and part of the reason he moved out
there. was "':b.eca.use .of� _the. Zoning and he i s opposed to
"the ` i one 'change .
Mark Noland, 8 Hathaway Lane is opposed to the zone
cfi�ifi., 4 j61.1,
Dennis Hester, loo Hathaway Lane, which is adjacent to
.this proposed .s.ubdi-v,i.sion. He read a portion of a
statement. he had prepared which dealt with both the
zoning and, ,the _subdivision, but he woul-d like to have
this statement to be introduced and applied to both the
z.on3..ng. hearing .-.and th.e ,subdi.v_ision hearing. He started
out' -by' saying that he is personally troubled, as others
are, . that s taf f would change its. rec.ommen.dati on on the
opinion of the developer's counsel, Bill Ast 1 e , whom I
.have worked with for many years, and whom- I indeed
respect, but with whom on occas ion disagree with. I am
-.concerned that . th.ey would. change- -their -rec�ommendati on
so late in the ' 'game r- based on' an ' ' opini on given today,
apparently .wi t.hout .. adeq-uat.,e res-earch .on the part of
N staff to verify these adjudications that - have
apparently taken. place. [Mr. Hester � read f rom. his f our
paces' of 'wri t t e n 'testimony and submi t t e same 'whi 6h. 'i s -
.attaached 'hereto as dart -of the mn'utes ] He made
0 , J
additional. comments regarding the zone change as
fol�l`aws", .�� am etremply concerned about the density
the d vel oper desi ros , which is directly related to the,
zoning he is requesting.. on beha-1 f of -my neighb.ors., I
would like to present to this Board by presenting to
the'' clerk, over 50 ..zoning protests ..indicating
opposition to this zone from people in our
.neighborhood . [attached as part of the minutes],
Dave Stark,. 787 Two Mile Driver agrees with what Denni s
said, and is opposed to this zoning change.
Isabelle Larson, said she and her husband . Don. have
.lived at 782 .Two Mile Drive, s-ince ,1969, and they are
opposed t'o this"* I am a retired teacher. - The
.statutory -requirements for zone changes state that
-sohbolA Impacts be adequately addressed, and she wished
to focus .on this issue. Exc.l.uding opinions, I will be
glad to gave names of authorities who have verified my
res.e.arch so ..as to. make .thi..s . as. a.dequa.te as possible.
The' ' 'n-eighborhood schools for this general area are
Peterson. -.and .Russell. According to the •county
superintendent Oi-ey' are comfortably. full.. There are no
.i,mmed,iate' plans for new .s cho-o1.s .in .t.his area.
Extensive multiple units in various stages- of
cons.t ruct..i on , -are being sold o.r, . rented, -north of Two
Mile Drive, east and west of Meridian.. Although I have
not. researched - these,,,, anyone . driv.ing by can def..i.ni, tel y.
soe that . it will increase . the Russell School
populationt ourren.t.l y, under co,n.stru.cti an south of Two
Mile'-Dr..iire and ..west' of Meridian are 34 units, at the
Two Mi_l e ..D-rive__. _: apa..rtments., -and 54 lots -f-or -single
f.amn.y.. dwel fangs or duplexes at Greenbriar. reenhaven-
. ha. a' -proposed 50 lots for.. single.. family or -duplexes,
ahi oh would moan l� 0 families . She used the lowest
figure in FRDO repdirt -as an .. es t imat.e for'- school
`chi`l'd-ren, a conservative figure of 150 additional
students f o' r Po.ter.s-on...and Russell. schools. ..If in fact,
thes-e projects are affordable housing for young
fami li.e's , then the number of students could easily
'double or tripl e.' These young students at oreenbriar
or oreenhav,en will be required to get to school either
y by.- bi cy-c 1 e or walking-:- Those going to Peterson must
c.ro-ss .-dangerous Hwy 2.and dangerous Meridian to get to
s .ch6&1__,. Those going_ fo Russ Iell must get onto Two Mile
Drive which is a nightmare, across M.er.i.di.an, and
`" Wyomin.g. 'with. no sidewalks'. She can thi n-k of no more
dangerous. -routes f o.r . youn.g ch.i.1 d.ren .. If ..Ru.s.s e 1 l . .and.
Peterson schools -are full, the children will be bussed
to other ..school-s . our two . children, now grown.,
received *an outstanding.., education in the Kalispell
schools .. Butz we - �al so .hel�a,eve :that --'choo-l's provide
rail par j o.f.. a child", e ' cat . on. .-:I1f we , are .to. keep
:.. du.r,,.':ohi i:di�en �saf-e _.from-Id.r�u:gs anal- vibl.en e r a...g�ro�.t -byg
<wpro b1�' � for,__'s ho`v1.s... :then e mush give t����-ri an
envi r.onmen.t ' to pursue abti.vi.ties after school .
10
--� Friendships form for kids- at school, but when the
ends 1,1ve in d�. f f erent neighborhoods , they can t gel
t0g6t.h k ee .0 t. re isno way try d that: e
mel domed :.ki-ds in..�th-e -neighborhood 'whi 1 e 'our"'kids -were
growing up. because we had ' the spaceA'f one t1",me, we
,were engrossed i.n •designing, bui1d.ing and .l.aunc,hin.g
rockets , and one of those boys that did the project is
one of . the top r.ock.et sc.i.entists in this country. We
had basketba l l hoops and band s es s ions. During ing the high
school years, the boys carve .-over .anal. ..spent . several
m6fiths 1n sur garage putting together a vehicle. "young
-peop'l e ''ha c-an. spend -tine. doing things that interest
'"'them find less reason to escape frustration and boredom
_. b'y . using " drugs and.' 60mmittin.g 'crimes., and -they also.
1 earh:` -A i.f e16ng " Sk:. l l s . The nature of high density
housih'g , and .._.i f- you read. the covenants f or thy. s
..p.ro ect it does not pY'i ae .'the .. p ce and the f'reec em
for projects. If planning i s to be meaningful . it .must
not be about 'lines on maps. It must � be ' about qua l i-ty
of life for .people anal especially for the children.
Steve Note. 836 Two Mile Drive,, is opposed to the
zoning cha''ngen
Robert Lehman, 1930 Hwy 2 West, said that we went
through the-. same .hassle two years ago on the other side
f of the road, along Ashley Creek. I live on the Ashley
__Creek side.' z agree ..with .what some of the attorneys
have ' s'id here, and my wife and I are definitely
.,opposed.. to the rezoning.. There is on-e item. I have not
-"heard brought up and that is the f act that -this area is
I a f.l.00dp l ain area. I f you look at where the water
from., this_ .'area drains,,.._...it. a'l' :_-.ends up-. h. 1shley Creek .
our wat-er.. .rights date .back t o .18 9 4 . and- they dozy' t_'mean
much anymore, because of the pesticides and. fertilizers
.that wash . dawn _into that creek since we've been on our
property, and has caused an oxygen block on the lower
side of ,Ashley Creek . I -think we should look. at .the
ei.v'::ronmental ,impact on the water. and the.'total
env.i ronment for the area.
Greg Goode, 1639 Hwy 2 west, and my opposition -to this
.prop.o.sal .is . that this parcel --was st.udie-d and earmarked
by the study to be the prime location for a future
truck bypas-s , that. .has been _,needed for -20 years -or
more. Now, someone is proposing to build a high
dens i.t.y..subdivis-ion in the path of -this future roadway.
Why are we ignoring the bypass study that we spent so
much money on?.... I-.t makes no. ..economic sense to .approve
a more concentrated housing development in an area that
has the potential and need that is so very apparent by
the truck traffic in town on any given day As most
} pol.iticians do, they pass,the buck.- The city will .. say
...i.t ' is the county' s problem, the county will say it is
a state problem, the state will come in with the
statement that it is the federal government's problem.
11
In this case, the buck should stop before it starts.
This is our problem, the taxpayers.. when the city ►
county or state governments speaks of federal road
' money, it is made to sound as if the do l 1. ars come from
some foreign country or outer space. This money does
not come from outer space . It comes from every member
of the council, you and me, the taxpayer, sitting here
tonight. we should be doing long term planning by
.defeating the zoning change and insisting that it be
kept .as it is presently zoned. If we have vacant land
and possibly two homes to buy, as opposed to ten plus
duplexes, and streets to revamp, we 'are comparing
mi l'1 ions of dollars to thousands saved by not allowing
the zoning classification to be changed. This affects
each and every taxpayer in the city of Kalispell,
county of Flathead, state of -Montana. It affects all
of us in -the pocketbook.
Ed Marks, .said he owns 3 3/4 acres of property on
Hathaway Lane.. He "bought this property '20 years ago
with the intention of building a home there and putting
' up a truck shop. In 1988 while he was in the hospital,
the Planning Board zoned this to R- 1 so that he
coul-dn't move his shop there... Last year I wanted to
give my son a 1 1/ 4 acre of I and there. It took me s i x
months to get the approval s from the Planning Board and
health department to let me do that. I resent the fact
that one phone call can make this gentleman change his
mind. I spent thousands of dollars trying to change
their minds and 6 months of my time. I agree, also,
with everything said here against -this zone change.
Karen Nielson, 1608 Rainbow Lane, Washington.. I am
sorry - that I. arrived I ate. I. want it on the record
that I am not a relative of Mr. Bi. rk' s . I live in
Seattle and am representing -Anna C. Howe who lives at
1202, Two Mile Drive, and my grandmother has owned her
property .there for nearly 60 -years, There was -nothing
-but farmland there when it was changed to R-1.. That
meant that everyone could move in around here. she
l'ov6d and cherished all 'of her neighbors as they grew
up. I am in favor of Mr. Bi rk' s development. I feel
that her property would be more advantageously
deve 1 aped , and I could. get 'more money for it to
represent her. and care for her 'in her old age. She
paid her taxes, she sent four children to . school at
Flathead High School, she took care of everything
around her , .and a 1 l of her neighbors. I f eel that now
in her old age, she should receive the most amount of
money for her property, and development is. the way to
get that. If Mr. Birk gets the zone change, it will
help have. all that land annexed into Kalispell.
Whether i t is developed " nto high density Or whether i t
is just subdivided . into. small 1 ots so that they would
"be single family dwellings, it will still allow her to
.make money off of .. her property which she paid for,
12
loved and cherished for many, many years. [For the
record, Ms. Neilsen was in favor.]
Jeanne Li.nrud, 680 Two Mile Drive.. my husband and I are
opposed to the zone change,
There being no other speakers either in favor or in
oppos i t i on -to the --requested zone -change, the public
hearing was closed and the meeting opened to Board
deliberation,
Discussion Vice -Chair Kennedy said that she would like to stand
behind Mr.' Parsons and his d.e.ci s i on in changing his
rec ommendat 'ion I'do not believe he changed due to
intimidation by one phone call from Mr. Ast l e at the
last hour of the last day. Z believed after reading
his report, that we needed to address the issue of the
zone change separately from the proposal , itself . 'The
report we received 'was one in which Mr. Pa.rsons was
"'looking' at both of them tlogeth'er , because they were
.submitted together. It is my under -standing . that we
need 'to ' address zoning separately from and not address
the Subdivision review that was going on at the same
time. That ... was also his direction from his'
administrator, the director of the department.
Fred Hodgeboom believes that we do have future housing
_ needs in Kalispell and surrounding area, but has
concerns about the location of this particular
proposal. We need in-fi 1.1 development rather than
stepping out into single family districts. I ' m
thinking that the Highway 93 bypass would be the
logical division between the densities. I question
whether we really need to step out west of the bypass
with , this density at this time.
Bob Lopp wanted to elaborate on some of the
present'ati'dns; ' in that the R-1 zone was developed in
response to our process of en.c.ouraging zoning and
'devel opment of - the master plan. The neighborhood,
realizing that this was the time, got together as a
neighborhood and 'selected' what they f e l t was
approp.ri.ate for their area --- an R-1 We -have heard of
a number of people who have subsequently bought within
this area ..based on the. knowledge that it was zoned R--1 .
I find it difficult to go back now and right in the
.middle of then and change it .to a significantly higher
density. we have heard the owners that surround this
property, saying they are opposed to it, Anytime you
make a change like this you affect not only the
financial' view, and opportunity for the owner of the
property being annexed, but you also affect' the
property that -surrounds 'it'. -There is -already, in the
the"
. economic return on theproperty as it is
current l y -zoned , if ' .we... go -ahead ' .and change -this , we
also of feet by ,, a ing�, away f Qom the neighboring
13
properi t es unless they were to zone at the higher
density. They have indicated .they are not interested
in -that . They are there because they. 1 ike that zone.
Fred has a good point, in 1o.oking at the bypass as a
logical transition line. At the time the master plan
was developed, we did not have. a location for the
bypass. Therefore, we can't look at the current master
plan where we would ..like to see high density, which has
variations within it. we may be at a point to amend
..the master plan recognizing that we now have a t raf f i c
plan and making - i t a logical dividing line. It is time
to reinforce that. The people made their choice, they
supported planning, selected their zoning, which we
approved. I am disappointed with the timing of what
`has happened ' "w- i' th this. I think it i s difficult for
both the :proposer and those who have seers the staff
report and then come to find it very different. I know
i.t. is difficult for you too, John, but too many points
have been made this evening and in. looking at the
character of the area, for me to support this zone
change..
Milt Carlson wanted to approach this f rom a di ff erent
. angle : Y :: A`f ter spending two years .putting together the
County Master Plan, it occurs to me that the
neighborhood designation is the way to go. The
neighborhoods 'designate -the way they wish their zoning
to be' and work together so that everyone in the
neighborhood can at least be protected and semi -happy.
Nobody is happy with the final results, but at least
there is equal unhappiness, that is the way that
compromises work .out . We see many. i.nst:ances of single
property. es that jut out of the city that do not have
_ . real at.i onshi p. to what .has .a l ready been es t ab 1. i shed and
what could be going on in the future. I would
-recommend, ..not only for..this part of the city, but for
other sections in the city, to come up with a
neighborhood plan to be incorporated within .the master
plan. It would seem quite right to preserve and
continue to preserve the type of zoning the residents,
as a whole, in that area want.
Kennedy said that the zoning you are both alluding to
.is county zoning, but what we are looking at here is
city - zoning . What I hear you saying is that the city
zoning should be comparable and ref 1 ect the county
z oni ng . . .L.opp and Carlson agreed.
Walter Bahr appreciated that the neighbors have spoken
loudly that they do not want a higher density to be
approved in this -area. I certainly respect that desire
upon he'ari ng i t .from that many people.
John Parsons read for the benefit of the audience, from
the Kalispell - Z.oning ordinance which deals with
protests to zone changes in section 27. 30.030. It
14
deals with hearings at the city council level. "In the
case, however, of protest signed against such changes
signed by the owners of 20 or more of either the area
of the lots included ..in such proposed change or of
those lots immediately -'adjacent oh either side thereof
within the block or of those directly opp.osi to thereof
extending 150 feet from the street frontage of such
opposite lots, such amendments shall not become
eff ective except by the favorable vote of three -fourths
of a 11..E members of city council." What this says is
that if ' ' you are serious about opposing, put it in
writing. Indicate which property you own, so staff can
tell city council where you live, where the opposition
is, and .whether or not that 20% is opposed, which in
this case there obviously is.
Lopp felt more c-omfortable with the staff report as
mai l'ed t-o members. We have not seen the. inf ormati on
that Mr. - Ast 1 e..has presented to staf f , or an opinion
-from Mr. - 'Nei er . Also, taking into consideration the
testimony, tonight from legal counsel -.taking the view of
the origi..nal recommendation and findings of fact, may
be :just- as valid .a.s Mr. Astle. we also have the letter
from the Montana Department of Transportation
_.encouraging .us to ..s.eri ous 1 y ..consider .the impact of
subdivisions, and in this case, a zone changer upon the
bypass proposal . The ..concepts they ref er to are
applicable. what is pointed out is that increased
development in a .corridor proposed would be a foolish
impact on the traffic plan which is also part of the
master plan. I don't happen to care for the location
that hay been selected f or- the bypass,, however, it is
part of the master plan, and has --as much impact, has as
much validity in our discussion as the fact that this
area. oou.l d also f all within high density.
Kennedy asked if he wanted the letter from MDOT read
into the record?
He said no, but the concepts are there. We need to
Look at the demands from both sides. we have a master
plan that says this area could be high density. The
master plan does not require that -every devel opmen.t
within it' rmet the highest usage . Just because the
mast-er p l an says it -could be high ..density, does not
. mean it has' to 'be high density. Secondly, we have
within our,.own master plan a .designated .corridor for a
bypass . As a Board we have to look at and weigh those
as :competing requi r.ements within our own document, our
own master plan. We had good counsel this evening
1 oohing at that same document .and saying that we have
to r cognize, should recognize the potent.I al impact of
the bypass upon this piece of -property. We have had
sol"i'd -comments from the neighbors -that are right on the
border :'tat'ing that -they would 1 ike to stay -exact l.y as
15
they are. We have plenty of evidence to stay with Mr.
Parsons' original report.
Kennedy recognized Mr. Herba l y , Planning Director of
FRDO, in the -audience to address his comments to the
Board. For the Board's information, he stated that
J. n. asked him a eneric question that afternoon about
. oh _ g q
subdivision review and zoning and annexation requests.
I -did not -have ..any. knowledge that any attorney. had
contacted him or spoke to :.nf 1 uence the decision. I
told, him no.,.. the eva l.uati on of a.. z one change request is
generic as i± there i s no subdivision proposal on the
table. Make the. recommendation in relation to the
master plan, keeping in, mind Lowe vs. Missoula, when
the court articulated those points of decision in
relationship to a zone request. If the subdivision had
a fatal f l aw- that is .independent of whether or not the
zoning requested is'in compliance with the master plan,
and -so my comments to John were not affected by anyone
threatening to sue or to bring pressure on us to change
-'the' decision..
Motion. Lopp moved to adopt FRDO report #KA-- 95 2 as original 1 y
presented;- as findings of fact and forward a
recommendati on 'f or denial as' presented. Bahr seconded,,
on a roll call vote Hodgeboom, -Bahr, Sanders , Lopp , and
Car l' s on- vot ed aye . Kennedy voted nay. The motion to
deny. the. zone change request f rom (County) R-1 to
{ i ty') R'4� 'was passed on a 5 vote.
CREENHAVEN Next, Kennedy introduced a request by Tim Birk for
SUBDIVISION preliminary plat approval of a 50 lot single
PRELIMINARY fami 1 Yf dup.l ex s'ubdivisi on of approximately 12 ,.5 acres,
PLAT to be known as Creenhaven Subdivision. The property
.has been -requested to he :annexed. with an _i ni.t i a ..,zone
of R-4 (Two Family Residential) . The site is generally
located .at..the.n.orth. end of ..and on the east side of
Hathaway Lane, s outwes t of the Creen.bri a r Subdivision.
The -site i.s furthe.r .described as Assessor ` s Tracts 6A,
6D, GF, and. 6C8 in the Sw4 of Section 12, T28N, R22W,
P.,M.M., Flathead County,
Staff Report Parsons gave a detailed presentation of subdivision
,. .. report'' #KPP.- 95-43 w The request was evaluated in
. -accordancewith the suhd�.ision regulations and
statutory criteria for review of a subdivision.. Based
an the findings-, staff recommended that preliminary
-plat, . for Creenhaven Subdivision be denied.
A letter received on 3 f 13/ 9S from the Montana
Department of. -Transportation was read .into the record
and is attached hereto as part of the minutes.
Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the
w proposed subdivision.
16
In Favor Bret Birk, one of the developers, wanted to say that
the mast'e'r I -plan specifies tIiings that neighborhood
plans don't and that is to recognize that there is
growth in the Flathead . It is inevitable . That is why
'-this area was decided to be suitable f or up to 40 units
per acrewe are suggesting S units per acre, which, is
we.1 within that recommendation. Also, we suggest that
'd.ev"e1 opment. _.should be encouraged where municipal sewer
and water f ac'i 1 'it i es are available to prevent
Contamination of the groundwater and the degradation of
the ' envi ronment . As far as the runoff water, that will
-be contained on the property as required by state law.
Tim Birk, said any brother and I would certainly propose
a subdivision that will meet all the requirements of
_,the governing bodies. The reason for the density is
the infrastructure required for annexation and
development of this type is very expensive and with a
reas onab l -e .amount of density there is no economical way
to ftnance i t . Also, although we have, a bypass plan,
per se, we don't have any exact way of ..dealing with
that right now. Even by this morning they couldn't
.tel 1 us within 120 feet of:. where it is going to be.
'Ba we are looking at either 30% of th" s site not being
utilized or. 45%-. that...t.akes off across that property at
a 45 degree angle, l andl ocking a portion of the
pr,o.perty . The secondary ac.cess has been discussed with
Ronnie back whose land borders the 30 foot easement
t granted f r_ em the _Greenbri ar Subdivision and we would
entertain a roadway I through that seoti on of ground .
But-, it might be a moot point in this case, because we
still don't' know about this access. This access, as
a l 1 you ' p'eop 1 e who have been around here for s o many
years know, that they have talked about this specific
-west side access since the early ' 5o' s . It looks like
it might be' 'coming to a head, wi-thin a year, maybe-.
The situation we have in this valley, is we are trying
to a .. f ew of these 5-acre parcels f rom being
de've l oped'-- out in the county, that have the potential
f'O'e - degradation of the groundwater ' and open space and
that type of_ thing . Well, tonight is a good example of
what happens when you try to approve that density.
None ' of these lots are small in comparison to the
existing township lots. I just don't know where to go.
We 'r'el ied on the master plan, we are expecting to fully
improve ' 'thes'e propert-i es, tb cify' ..stan.dard.s .
There being no further proponents, the public hearing
was opened t o � th "s e' opposed t o the subdi v i s x on revues t .
opposition Dennis Hester, 100 Hathaway Lane, wanted to make two
points which were n__ ot in. his prepared statement. (1)
Z do -agree with Mr. Herb_aly and the chair on the
,-- analysis of-..... the zoning issue and:. the. 'subdivision
proposal sh'oul d _ �be' considered, at al l t imes ,
separate l .y�; They Nshou. d be ana l y ed s eparat e l Y as they
17
should be analyzed based on different criteria. As I
stated in the zoning portion, zoning is _required to be
in compliance with the master plan. Subdivisions are
not required to comply with the master plan. I would
like to raise a few specific points regarding this
subdivision proposal, First.. I would like to address
the omissions and errors i n the- environmental i
assessment submitted by the developer. [He read from
h'is prepared statement, which is attached hereto as
part of the minutes.] on behalf of his neighbors, he
submitted letters of opposition to the subdivision and
annexation, 'which contain indi vi dua 1 comments from over
_.4o of his neighbIors . [These comments .are inc l uded ' and
attached' hereto as part of' the minutes. (39 letters
representing 42 property owners.)] He suggested
additional findings of fact beyond those suggested by
FRDO because, I be l i eve that a recommendation for
denial based solely on noncompliance of the master plan
'is' ''not' ' suf f i'ci ent '. The additional eight (8)
recommendations 1 would suggest are '[as stated in the
testimony attached.]
Mark Noland, 8 Hathaway Lane, testified that he has a
home and ,b,usiness 1 ocat4d at the intersection of Hwy 2
West and- 'Hathaway Lane -He read his testimony in
opposition to the proposed subdivision,_ a copy of which
is attached as' part of the minutes .
David Phillips, 824 8th street West, representing Louis
and" Caro 1 .A Phi 1 tips , . who live at' 67 2 ' Two Mile Drive,
adjacent to the proposed subdivision, one' of things I
.."I ind aamazing, the many times I"ve been in f rant of' the
County Planning- Board, is that I ' ire seen many proposed
Subdivisions with certainly a better approach than
_ this'. - -_.We-- may expand a secondary easement, which Mr.
Parsons pointed out was needed as a requirement. Many
developers would already have this plan to present.
Another thing that directly deals with the subdivision
and the subdivision only, is the 1.6 acre park that has
already-' been 'given for Greenbriar, that is going to be
used for' Greenhaven with 100 units on it. I don't see
where that would be adequate. Therefore, it is our
contention 'that, unfortunately,' the people might use
__ �. our ' ad j oining acreage f or their park, which, as has
been pointed --but, sometimes contains livestock . I
would ask that ' the "planning board, if they were to okay
this subdivision, would require_ a chain link fence, at
'l..east' 8 feet high, to keep the people out of the
adjoining .livestock area . The reason I ask this , is we
have had situations where we have put e 1 ec't ri c fences
up and''the neighborhood kids lean their bikes against
'i t and short ..them out, and then they are useless to use
for 1ivestockfences. secondly, I would like to
address everyone here. what this board does is just
`-' recommend. It is much more important that we are all
at the city council meeting when they vote. They are
18
our elected officials and it is just as important that
.. we a.re" there.. as we are here tonight.
L Gary Crowe, representing his parents, Ikon and Patricia
CrIowe, who" -reside at 1471 Hwy 2 West, said basically
you ha`re heard al l these concerns before but f or the
purposes of this record, I will address the aspect of
'.-the subdivision as proposed. I will speak to each of
you individually as you were kind enough to address
your concerns individually. obviously, some of the
biggest concerns here are that we are going to have a
". huge 'of f e'ct' on 'the character of -the neighborhood. This
subdivision, 'as proposed, will -affect the 'quality of
_.the' l i f esty 1 e' of the 60 residents who appeared in
01pposition' to both the change in the zoning, as wel 1 as
'..the subdivision. This 'was articulated by Mr. Bahr.
Certainly you have to have an ear to the track as to
.what public voice and sentiment you are hearing. I
find it real interesting that in neither of the
residential subdivision proposal or the zoning
proposal, that we have not heard from Mr. Daniels, the
-property owner . We didn't have an attorney for Mr.
Daniels. What we had was a real estate broker, and his
brother, and they have a vested interest in this.
Certainly when have 60 residents and landowners, their
Voice must be heard. These are people who own
property, 3/4' s of the perimeter of the proposed
subdivision, who are here with a resounding opposition
to this subdivision. Even the landowner within which
~~J the• subdivision itself is to be located, isn't here to
support 'his own 'proposal. We are 1 ooking at - the
characteristic of the entire area being changed. We
have an obligation' to stay with the public voice as
`arti dii1ated by Mr . Bahr, but in addition, we have an
obligation to stay, as Mr. Lapp articulated, with the
R�.1... established designation. R- 1 encompasses 1
dwelling per acre. Itdoes not encompass loo dwellings
on a 13 'acre parcel . it "i s obvious, and should be
clear-' to all members of the commission, including
yourself Mrs. Kennedy, that you have a situation here
where 'certainly this subdivision with its volume is the
inherent probl e'm You have a situation where there are
no parklands designated within the subdivision. He is
r submitting' that 'we are going to use parkland from
another subdivision,. Who is going to use that
park l and? Are we _going ' to put that on swing shi f t?
In addition to the quality of the area being affected,
I have to' agree with Mr. Lopp , that we do not take into
. accoun.t with- this proposal anything whatsoever, with
regard to the proposed bypass. I don't know how much
plainer it can be than that we have a letter from the
.__..state department of transportation who is not on'l y
discouraging you, but suggesting that you prevent any
' further 'deV'el opment of any type with .n' . the proposed
-bypass ' corr'id-or-. Mr.- Birk can stand up And -say that we
have 1'20 f eet I'at i tude , but the " bottom 1 i ne i s that
19
this is in the corridor area. He cannot argue that
.,..._. r... _ this is not "'within that dictate that you received from
MDT. It would behoove you as a political body to at
least give Mr. Martin's letter the same professional
courtesy that'he is asking from you. I have to agree
with Mr. Lopp , I nearer did want the thing over there to
-. beggin with, ' but I am not here to argue the merits of
the bypass. But that is where that beast is lying at
this time. That is where this proposed subdivision is
also lying. That cannot be overlooked by this
commission" Thirdly,' we '' have' a situation regarding
public safety. The situation on public safety has not
....even been addressed here by the developer. Let's
assume, for example, that we are going to address those
safety' factors that Mr . Hester articulated. The
question is that all of those safety factors, from the
little retired schoolteacher that got up to Mr. Hester
talking about the intersection and a flashing light, to
various other''' aspects. We are talking about the
impacts on safety of not only the neighborhood, but the
„'...,i0.0' _., ` f ajrhi' 1 i es that' woul d be' in ' thi s proposed
Subdivision. We are not talking about safety in the
subdivision ; but " about areas 'outside the subdivision.
Mr. Birk has not addressed that at all in his proposal.
. O"b i ous T Y ,. i f he is not going to address 'it, he i s not
going to pay for it . so, who is going to pay for the
saf ety needs ' that 100 fami 1 i es are going to put on the
-- adjacent area ' around thisproposal? it is going to be
th.. e tax payersand ou a 1_ '1 know' --how "the taxpayers 1 1.ke
p y
to pay for 'various mistakes that are made at this
1 eve 1 . ' Fourth'' ' we have a situation with Hathaway Lane
at- present that I would really wonder about as an
. al ternat'ive ' route. Mr, Parsons recommended denial
based primari 1 y o_n the fact that there was no secondary
access, Basically, there is nothing before you at this
time to the contrary. There is no proposed secondary
access to this subdivision, Mr. Birk said that he had
talked to Ron Pack and there is 30 feet over here.
Wel'I , I ' m sure there is a whole lot of property over
there-: The problem is, you don't have anybody standing
here telling you that they are going to allow this
gentleman to use that as a secondary access. Unless
and until you do, that is reason enough to deny the
subdivision request'.
We have no storm drains. I was raised in this area,
and this 'is an old marsh. There is a one acre pond
located c1i rent l y"'south of the site''..' and 'we have a very
high ''water table in 'this area, What are you going to
d'o ....regarding high ' water and ' the di f f i cul t i es that
brings forth. They haven't been addressed in this
.. plan What i s that goin4 to do to the adjacent
property', -let' alone the proposed subdivision, itself?
-. -The bottom' line is that you have no less than 75%
vocalized opposition to this proposed subdivision of
adjoining 'landowners, If Mr. Birk has the liberty of
461
talking about Ronnie Pack hearsay, so can I. Ronnie
..Pack ia.s ' ' ha'l f o f the east ' boundary, and he withdrew his
-� preposa 1 net oo long ago, so where does Ronnie Pack
stand on this. You could have as'much as 85%
,....opposition -to this subdivision.' More importantly, the
detrimental reliance, there are people here who bought
property. in th'e of f ected area. You gave them an
opportunity . to choose what they wanted , and these
pe6p1 e told you"resoundingly .we want R--1, we' want this
1 ife.style, we like this qua"l ity, we like this place.
Den' t let two ...developers' ' oame in motivated by the
dol l'ar and tell' you -'that this is not what these people
are ent i t 1 ed to have.n...
Rim Ross, 1468 Hwy 2 West, is opposed to this proposal
arid agrees. with everything that has been said.
Jeanne Linrude , 680 Two Mile Drive,, next to this
development, and is opposed to it.
Bill Wills,. 1479 Hwy 2 West, is opposed to the
subdivision.
Pat Wills, 1479 Hwy 2 West, is opposed to the
subdivision.
Donald Crowe, 1471 Hwy 2 West, I own 9. 5 acres
immediately- south of this proposed subdivision. I
r` f enbed � i t with a: '4 112 f oot -'woven wire f ence , with
�strands of barb wire on top. It is a ladder for kids.
They can run over_ it just like a stepladder, which they
do. I raise alfalfa on this piece of land, and I
harvest approximately 1500 bales a year in two
cuttings . At those times of year when my hay is ready
to� �bal e, i t could very ea-si�l be burned . It is very
dry". I have a hay barn just ac ross * that field. The
concentration of kids in this development' wi 1 l " come
._.. acrIoss.. that field, because there is nothing . that kids
like bet terthan ' to p 1 ay in a hay barn. They can go
around the ''east end of my f ence and come across the
'field.- They can''g'o around the west end through a pipe
fence. They can walk 200 feet,, crawl through a split
rail 'f ence to get " to the pond . Unf ortunatel y , it is my
stallion pen. I raise quarter horses. I have
steal 1-ions and ' brood mares. After the hay is up, I put
my broad: mares a.nd.' - colts in the field next to this
subdivision. Da you think the kids are going to stay
out? Those mares are going to kick someone's head.
They don't like kids playing with their babies, and
neither do I . - I have a pond that is about one acre in
e . It 'i' s ' net' very clean, but it is djeep . There is
nothing t'o keep the kids out of that pond . Every year ,
A' _._.f kick kids out of_rny pond . Rids z ' ve never peen,
catching f nags and running around ...._ My- stal 1 ion is in
- there f rom the" .1: rst �of ' kay unt�1 l` the en cl of September .
Anather concern' 1_s, that Hatha►"ay Lane is not the road
21
that people think it is. The shoulders are breaking
..off . where the mail truck stops, it is sagging, if
r� you increase the traffic, the county will have to
reconstruct the road.
Ed Marks, said I own 300 acres across the road from
Hathaway Lane . First, they are right about the runoff.
""There is a' 'high water" table' "in' the area, and it will
probably raise the water table a foot from all the
runoff from the oil ed streets, the houses, etc. , which
is going to put a lot of the neighbors' basements in
the- water. Secondl y, I am in the trucking business,
and know something about how long it takes to stop a
truck. You can put all the lights you want to at the
bottom of the hill, but unless you put a 25 mph speed
' l irni t at the tap of the hill you aren't going to get a
truck to stop, especially in the winter when it is ice.
":."You put ' another ' 1D0 families out ' there, ' you are going
to have l'ots'of problems:
Russ Marks, I live at 30 Hathaway Lane with my wife
Rhonda. One of the safety issues I have is
the
traffic. ''We moored out of Country Estates two years
ago
so that . we could get away from high t raf f i c areas
so
that' our kids could run around in the yard, and
we
wouldn't have to worry about someone running them over,
You look at Hathaway Lane and you might say that
you
can build*a sidewalk there, but I don't think
the
r enviro'nimental fists wi l 1 al 1 ow you to increase the width
- road, to build a sidewalk or not because
of that r , ►
we
had trouble getting septic approval because of
the
small marshy area that is in the northeast corner
of
,the property. I think you have bad environmental
-assessments on this project.
Brett Katsi f f , 577 Two Mile Drive, and my wife and I
are. opposed-to_..the subdivision.
Stanley Gross, 40 Hathaway Lane, submitted a copy of
his testimony in- ''opposition' to the proposed
subdivision, which is attached as a part of the
minutes.
Sheryl Hester, 100 Hathaway Lane, said that she and her
husband awn approximately 10 acres adjoining the
proposed ' subdivisi.on on the north side. I have the
same concerns as Mr. Donald Crowe regarding grass fires
and drainage, and I also have horses, stallions, ponds
and a' creek'. I am concerned about the lack of parkland
` .. "in the subdivision and am asking you to vote against
the proposal.
Bob Cole, 1470 Hwy 2 west, and I am opposed to the
--� subdivision development .
22
Isabelle Larson, my husband, Don and I, oppose this
subdivision. We. adjoin Hesters property, and about
three years ago, the people that own ''that property set
a field on fire, and came tearing through there at
"eight feet high. Without the help of our wonderful
neighbors, our place would be gone. So, that needs to
be addressed. The other thing is that the ground in
that area is very unstable, because the water table is
about 7 feet under the ground. I understand that this
is causing a few problems at Greenbriar that is
presently being developed. When the big trucks come
' down Two Mile Drive, it shakes our house. The bypass
_
is.planned on that route, and all of this adds to it.
There is truly serious consequences for the , water
J1 eV-61 because it is so high.' The land ''shifts and
pollution are serious, and the water table could rise,
Robert Leiman, 1930 Hwy 2 West, reiterated the
statement he made earlier on the rezoning. When they
1 coked at' 'this just a few years ago, on the Ashl ey
Greek side, the Highway Department -had some very good''
6tat:istics- of data, that they gave to the City. counci 1 .
It is a hazardous intersection. I live on the creek
. siide` and ' when I am go west on -the way home, I take my
l i' f e in my hands 'every day. I bought a new car a
couple of' years ago, and I didn't even get home with
i t . You need turn off lanes or lights. We have had
one logging truck, two pick --ups, and five passenger
vehicles in our stretch of the road, and I have lost
four mailboxes, until I could get concurrence from the
post office to move it off the highway. so, that,
along with ' the other statement I made about the water.
Please consider the water. The runoff ends up in
Pshl ey Greek, then' into Flathead River and into
Flathoad Lake: The fishing is practically nil,
Dan Johns., after_ almost 34 years of hanging around
baseball fiel-ds, I was the starting pitcher, and I
always. wanted to be a closer, but I didn't have a good
enough fast ball, so here it is. I ask you to approve
-the' recommendation of FRDO with the additions provided
by'Mr. Hester. They are very well stated. When you
`look at moderately priced houses and you look at the
application and submittal, you see $15,000 lot and
...$125;000 home. That is $140,000'a'If that is
moderately priced housing, so be it, but I don't think
the Flathead is at that level, yet. Five acre parcels
in the valley is a problem. The neighbors in this area
got together, came to the various bodies and got the
approvals for one acre parcels. You have some
co1.venants"' submitted 'to you as part of the subdivision
proposal '. ' But it' says they can be changed by the
ma j oki t'y of the -owners, so you can approve these today,
and they can be changed tomorrow. They are no good.
By not 'granti)ng the k 4 zone, this proposal is
impossible. This development requires a zoning change
23
Please recommend the staff's findings as modified by
Mr. Hester.
Ed Marks, wanted to add that the groundwater is going
to get into a lot of people's septic tanks..
Lon Crowe, added that Larry Parsons has ten acres
across from this development, west of Hathaway Lane.
Prior t o ' purchasing that, it was owned by Dr. Allen.
He had beautiful Visions of building a number 'of homes
there He had it perc tested in three areas. only one
on one 'Side of the creek, two on the other side were
accepted for septi cs . That tells you a little about
the area.
There being no further comments, the public hearing was
closed and the meeting opened to Board deliberation,
Each board member received a letter from Valerie
Parsons, whose letter was entered into the record and
-made a' -part hereof,.'
Discussion Lopp proceeded to include the findings submitted by
Dennis Hester into the staff report
Under B . RELATION TO ZONING.. add: The proposed density
..ri far greater than surround- ng properties and is not
n _ keep 1 ng wi th .the" genera 1* character ' 'or integrity of
the area'".'
Under C . RELATION TO SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, add: The
st" cs used 'in ' the envi ronmenta'l' assessment do not
ref 1 ect the appl i cati on whi ch is f or 50 1 ots of
.duplexes The statistics presented are for 48 lots
Under E. PUBLIC SERVICES FACILITIES, add: Approval
would be : premature as the area is not ripe for
deve l o'pment .. since the proposal depends on
infrastructure to the east and outside of the property,
which is not "in' existence, namely a city street
connecting to 'Corporat a Way %
Under F . EFFECTS ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAF9TY , add: (1)
The roayd�:..aecess aid right of ...way avai 1 abl e`r f r6m�.. the
subdivision onto, Hathaway Lane is unclear and
unresolved, '(2) '' The intersection of Hathaway Lane and
Hwy 2 cannot safely accomodate the increased traffic
without major improvements, which have. not been
addressed by the developer; and (3) The intersection of
Corporate Way and Hwy 2 has not been addressed by the
developer.
Under H. EFFECTS ON THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT add: There
are environmental concerns regarding "drainage and
ad bining wetlands to the west and south that have not
been adequately addressed by the developer.
24
Under I. -EFFECTS ON AGRICULTURE. add: A perimeter
buf f er'_.be'tween., the 'propoe ed "subdivision and'' ad joining
agri cul t' ura l '' lands has not been addressed. These
adjoining lands are utilized for livestock, including
.hors'es , which pose a danger to new residents and the
. animals", Negative impacts on adjoining 'properties have
ndt been1" adequately addressed . -
Motion
Lapp moved to adopt the subdivision report #KPP-95-03
for Creenhaven Subdivision, accepting the findings of
fact as amended and forward a recommendation of denial
to city council. Hodgeboom seconded. on a roll call
Grote Sanders, Bahr, Hodgeboom, Lopp, Carlson and
Kennedy voted aye. The motion to adopt the amended
findings of fact and recommend denial of preliminary
pIlat for Greenhaven Subdivision carried on a 5-0 vote.
President Therese Hash returned to preside over the
remainder o'f 'the meeting .
ZONING TEXT
The next scheduled public hearing_ on the zoning text
AMENDMENT J
ammendment to al 1 ow hotels in association with hospital s
- HOSPHOTEL
was deferred u-nti 1- after the public hearing on the PUD ,
_
Pres'i.dent' Hash changed order of the agenda to hear
_the
the ..-pub 1 i c hearing on the Northwest PITH
-Healthcare
prior to' the 'zoning text amendment, after getting
consensus from the Board.
NORTHWEST
Hash introduced a request by Northwest Healthcare for
HEALTHCARE
a zone change from H-1, B--3 and RA-1 to a Residential
PLANNED UNIT
Mi ked Use. Planned Unit Development in the RA-1 zone.
DEVELOPMENT %
The intent of the PUD is to provide a zoning district
..-BUFFALO
cl assi fi cation which may provide ''flexibility of
COMMONS
architectural design and mixing of land uses while
preserving and enhancing integrity and environmental
values of an area. This classification sets forth a
.
time frame for improvements to be instal led, types of
uses permitted, lot sizes,' landscaping, street layout.
......
The project 16 ' 'located between US Highway 93 on the
west, Or_andvi-ew Drive on the east, Sunnyv�i ew Land and
Her.i tage Way ''on the ' ' 'south, 'and Indian Trail Road
s'ubdivis i on on the north.
Although the City Attorney has not completed his review
of the terms' and conditions proposed_ to maintain the
'integrity of the p 1 an , the Board has agreed,'- by
concensus, to hold the public hearing on this matter.
Staff Report Parsons gave a detailed presentation of FRDO report
M #KPUD-'95-1. The statutory procedure for evaluating a
none change was reviewed relative -t`o the criteria set
f orth'. Staff I had a number of concerns with the
.. doacIumen,t submitted 'by the app l 'i cant, which were
temi zed and read through f or � the benefit of the
aud`ence.. Given tYie number ' of questions and 'c'oncerns
~ involving this document, s'taf f `could not recommend
25
approval and given the importance of this project a
denial should not be made. It was therefore
recommended' that the publ"' hearing 'on • the Northwest
Heal thcare PUD be continued to allow time to adequately
:..... address ..the � �cor corns of • the t ,
Questions Bob Lapp noted that staff raised a lot of issues that
- needs to be reviewed by the city attorney.''where are
you in the process of meeting with the developers
concerning • the issues that you raised? Parsons
responded that the developer has received a copy of the
s•taf f report. At this point in time, he has not
received any correspondence from the applicant
concerning the Lstaf f report.
Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to the proponents of the
project.
In Favor David Greer, spoke on behalf of Northwest Healthcare.
,_- I . think ""i t - i s a good application and one that the city
wi'l l f ind a real asset to the community. He wanted to
commend Northwest Healthcare for proposing a Planned
Unit Development. When you do a PUD, you master plan
that site,'coordinate the roads, the landscaping, the
extension of' services, and land' uses•.' • I -want to first,
go through. t•he application, and second, address the
-is' ues- that ' were 'raised . The app l'i cation includes a
series of •maps , which z Will show as = get to those
separate headings. , There is an application in the
'�. .. p g
Buffalo Commons book that 'includes findings of fact,
which are presented as to the rationale of the program
and PUD. This' 'is a detailed process which they have
-"beer working -on since last January. Greer introduced
the mul ti wdiscipl inary team who worked on the project.
The first part of the application requires that we do
plat; showing all the adjoining tracts of land, which
he point ed`* out on the map. ' A transportation network is
shown Some of the things which are unique to this
plan, is that we propose to abandon Heritage Way,
because it is an unsignal l ed intersection and does not
'line' up • with another street In lieu of that, we
propose-, another road extension to connect Heritage Way
at a..'d'ifferent •l"ocation. A new intersection would line
up with Northridge Drive, which would. be signalled.
Northridge Drive weu�,d• continue as a collector road for
connection with Grandview Drive. Windward way would
ext end back onto Sunnyvi ew Drive.
Another map was displayed showing the land use pods,
The transi•tion of" 1 and uses were explained. He pointed
out the various open spaces, the highway buf f er and how
the open areas interconnect. Use allowances for each
--� pod were reviewed as set forth in the PUD narrative.
He pointed out that for the retail/commercial/office,
we selected B-1, H--1 and R--5 uses, so there would be a
26
real neighborhood oriented type business area. The
only ekception' to that is the hosphotel. The
., professional medical use's are listed, which might be
-' associated with a medical campus . It also includes the
" po'ssibi l ity o'f having - residential uses.'
The engineering plans what you get in this
. application is more detai 1 ed ' than what you would get in
a preliminary plat application. The various
ir,f rastructural needs were modelled by Peccia
engineering 'firm,, taking the worst cane '' s'cenari os , to
ensure that it is sufficient to supply the needs for
''this'' community. He painted out that the roads will be
built to city standards. An extra four (4) feet on
each side" would accomodate two bike lanes. He went
ovrer.. ' the :trip generation rates shown in Tabe 3, page
19, which was done to ensure that the street system
works. The architectural renderings were pointed out
to be "inward oriented, which is a requirement of a PUD ,
so - tha.t nothing faces the highway. Landscape
treatments, signage, parks and commercial buildings
wer'e' des cribed ' in detail, to illustrate how everything
Will work. A trail .-system through the landscaped areas
was- explained. He pointed out that _ the city_ is
included as party to the covenants giving them the
authori t y- .t.o enforce them.
Greer thought the phasing plan a great one, because it
work's wel 1 as presented , T f the phasing is done in
order, there.. is nothing that can go wrong with it.
However; -if the phasing is changed; alternative
scenarios are explained,
Banding appears to be a real controversial element.
None of this' can be done without subdivision review
e would came in here with a preliminary plat, which
will offer the city an opportunity to establish
conditions -of approval. state law allows you to bond
for improvements associated with subdivisions. It is
very clear 'that ' i f you don't build all the required
infrastructure; then you bond for them. I think there
is some concern that maybe there could be something
built' in one:- of these pods that doesn't require
., subdivision review. We will go through subdivision
review, so the city wi 11 have an opportunity to examine
each -ph: s'e ,_. before - i t is' "built., and will bond
--accordingly at that time,
That is an overview of the application, and I think it
_._ is real im_ partant to understand that 'this is an
integrated application. This is a planned unit
development , and a lot of - work has gone into ensuring
a qua 1 i ty development .
I would now like to address the concerns expressed in
...- __ti.a a...�i. .. ..v .�ti�,.-. ...,. �......... r ..- .. .. � ..., n•..-- ��:� ... .... .. i .- .. �� �
the staff report .s you might expect,'' I way a l i tt 1 e
.. �. -i ... ,.r.i.. 4-...-1 .. ... . .... .... �. i.... .. ...... , i..�. .1.. .� - .. ..... - . . -. , 1. . _ . ...- . ..- . . .l. .. .. . . . . .
27
disappointed with the staff report. It was written
with . an objective to find everything bad about the
application, There was 'not one positive thing 'written'
about this application, nothing said about the
landscaping, ' the architectural qualities, ' i t was a l l
negative. I think the overtone of the report is one of
oonf rontati on and distrust , and' I am a1 so disappointed
in the overview that there were not any maps to show
"'the'" audience . ` I' think the of f ort that was put into
this was ea-si l y dismissed by the staff report.
As to concern #l, that Northwest Healthcare does not
appear to have a high level of commitment to the
project. I think that is an inappropriate and
unfounded statement, and should not have found its way
into any staff report. Northwest Healthcare bought the
land for hundreds of thousands of dollars. To me ` t ha t
is a' commitment. They proposed a PUD instead of
incremental development. They are setting development
standards for the entire property, and from the very
onset have said they do not intend to be developers
---They want to be able 'to' control development, set
standards for development, but they themselves, do not
-want to be developers.
#2 - a detailed index. The way this application was
µ organized was by the findings that are required in the
application, so the application was formatted to
address each of those accordingly. I hardly think that
-the ` lack 'of an index is grounds- for denial .
# 3 _ - remove any reference to Heritage Way. We
hone tl y thought we were doing everyone a favor 'by
proposing that-. I recently talked with the public
Yworks department, and they indicated that the best
course of action for Heritage Way would be to require
"Frig' M turns only. That is fine. We just thought that
one less approach onto the highway was better.
#4 regarding the covenants . ' I didn't write the
covenants. They were written by an attorney, and they
`do make sense, because it' is a phased development.
Each phase is a little different and should have their
.._own homeowners association. They do allow sharing of
board members across the pods so that they can comment
a on the detail as' built*. There is only one property
owners association that will share in the maintenance
of the common area. There is a separate architectural
review committee for each land use pod,
#5 the retail/commercial/office designation. Our
intent is one hosphotel . I think from a traf fic
standp�oi_ nt":` and 1 ogi cal 1 ocati o-'standpoint, it will go
-� in thi's area here[he` indicated on map], and there was
a concern on the height , and that wi 11 be addressed
later. It is smaller or the same size as Day's I-nn,
M
The only thing that might be 35 f eet is the hosphot el .
'I think the development standards that are in there are
adequate. As to the single structure, 4 retail spaces,
�--___-he referred to the Buffalo commons document, page 8 of
the covenants f or retail/commercial/of f ice. "Al I other
uses specifically listed above have no -specific size
.1 imi t.ati ons other than what is.necessary to achieve a
setback .
# 6 The only reason to do a residential planned unit
deve l opmen is' to mix land uses. He read f rem the
Xalispel'l_ . Zoning. 0'rdi.nance,' page ..56 r.. "Within a
residential PUD district, the uses and structures
permitted in R--1. through R- 4 zones and RA1 through RA-
3 zones shall be allowed." Anything allowed in those
zones are allowed in a residential PUD. Medical
offices are an allowed use in the RA-1 zone, as are
multi -family units, and hospitals. This is a
residential PUD by definition. Further down can page
56, it ' says you can add 10% commercial uses and still
call it a 'residential PUD. It also says that small
retail stores, coin -operated laundry and dry cleaning
establishments, beauty shops and barber shops are
all owed -in a residential PUD. That is allowed without
a mixed use PUD. We are allowed 10%, which is 7 acres
a.... of commercial use without a mixed use PUD. On page 57
a mixed use PUD is defined, which allows 3 5 %
commercial, In our PUD, adding al 1 the roads', etc., we
.~ have' 21 % .' This"' is all owed by right. That is my logic,
and I have expressed that to several staff members, and
I did it' before I submitted the application. I have a
Ie ter from the city, confirming that they agree to
that. The first thing that we talked about was a
residential mixed use PUD and we ended that meeting
with the same discussion. I explained my rationale for
what is commercial and what is not commercial. I got
a "follow-up letter on this meeting and they indicated
that everything seems to be' in order except f or
bonding. Bonding continued to be an issue. But, the
idea of residential mixed use PUD and using B -- 2 , B - 3 ,
and B-4 uses seem to be appropriate.
#8 -- drainage retained on site. The application
indicates that a number of di f f erent t echniques wi 11 be
`used t o dea 1 with drainage , and french drainage i s a
part of that '. Again, because we are going through
subdi vi-s i on review, those details can be worked out.
on sidewalks, I'm not sure what the concern with that
was, because z think every document -you have includes
this design, that shows' there will always be- a
.. """-b'oul evard'• separating the street from . the 'sidewal k ,
on # 9 - We tended to take_ the
r model water, sewer and traffic .
iw-i 11 be :detached. s ing 1 e f ami.1 y
worst case scenario to
Also the `d-eve1 opment
W
#10 We don't anticipate a waiver of sidewalks, but
you never know. We have done a lot of sidewalks, and
�a lot of� 'trails , but if it is going to hold up the
-� application, we won t ask for any waivers.
#11 elevations, the wall signs will be as per the
P' 1
Kalispell Zoning ordinance. All signage is described
in ' the application and are 'addressed in ' the covenants .
#12 As we plat each phase an architectural review
commit't'ee will be created for that phase.
#13 �--. What we showed in the application were concept
drawings , but they were base_ d on the standards set
fert'h . in the appl is .'ion. A11 the conderns wi1. 11 be
reviewed at the time of preliminary p�. at
# 14 - - regardi1.ng parks/ open space, That's okay, i f the
of ty does�n' want the parks , . ev n though i wi 11
-_ ben:ef i t a 1 of ' of peop 1 e , However, we think it would be
iinappropriate to pay_ a cash in lieu fee as it will cost
a f ortune to 'do ' this"' parkl and . what we are asking, and
-this is out of the state subdivision law "If the
proposed 'plat provides for a planned unit development
with land permanent 1 y set aside for park and
recreational -uses suf fic 'lent to meet the needs of the
persons who will 'Ultimately reside there, 'the governing
body may issue a 'order waiving cash donation
requi-rements . I think i f we have .to pay cash on top
of doing all the parkland improvements_ , 'it is kind of
an added 'penalty,,"'At beast f e 1 by state"aw, there is a
way ou_t_,
#15 Look on page 7 of the first set of covenants,
which -explain that is the intent. It will be a city
It -and 1 th�ink"'-t �is probably the responsibility of
the city.
#16 b . Al of these maps were part of the
application, These 'landscape" plats were' full size, and
we turned in .. full size rather than out and paste.
# 17 a. We are asking that the city donate 20 trees
a year ' f'o"r five years under the program they operate,
and the parks department seemed 'very cooperative in
that effort, because there are going to be hundreds of
trees associated with this. b. and c. All these
concerns afire addressed 'in the covenants ,' and everything
Will be done to.: dit'y standards .
#18 -- a. At the time that each phase is developed,
al l -undarl ying lot "line's will no ' 1 onger exist. b . No
subphas"i ng will' odc'ur . c . All phases will be
-� freestanding.' d , ' I f you' look at the regulations for
a PUD there is an amendment procedure that talks about
if you don' .t .finish the PUD and 'it is abandoned. There
30
would be no reason to abandon a PUD, because it is
.... a 1 r`ea`dy bond6d''.' The 'bonding here is the subdi vis1 on
review, preliminary
plat. ' Prior"" to final plat you
can't
record it until
all improvements are installed or
#19
--- a. We didn't
do a subdivision,
because with a
PUD,
what you s ee is
what *'you ' get. It
is 1 ock'ed in.
Any
changes would require
going through
the process to
get
the PUD amended.
b. No subphasing
is intended.
#20 a. Northwest Healthcare will have ultimate
responsibility to pay for the - signal. Our estimates
are , at' this- time that if Phase I and 'Phase II are
built out, it will take almost all of Phase III before
we reach, 3OoO ADT Ultimately, the state highway
department will determine that. b, Take this out of
the app l i cat on.-; " we won't' do any rough grading. c .
This it says if 'you don't comply with the schedule
and you don't do the improvements, the city council can
proceed with abandonment. Again, if everything is
bonded, there- is no reason to abandon it. We think
everything 'will be bonded pursuant to subdivision.
This is out of 'the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations
and thi s i s where you get your bonding. Before you get
final - pl at, the pub is works director - has to 'certify
that all required improvements have been installed or
securely banded for installation. That is out of the
subdivision enabling legislation, and I don't 'think the
zoning enabling legislation allows for bonding. So, if
you are doing a PUD, which i s a zone change, you can't
really 'band it, because there 'is no enabling
1 egis l ation to 'authorize it . The proper place to bond
in a PUD is through subdivision.
# 21 -- - a. If the PUD were abandoned for some reason,
it would _ revert back to the underlying zone
classification. We really don't have to do a PUD on
this 'property'. We 'Could ask f or separate zones. So,
theoretically you would get an H�-1 zoning
....classification`, with an R1�1 and a B--1. He described
various scenarios, pointing out that the infrastructure
`.. -has- td be in ^ place for each phase, no matter which is
bui It Iirst,
#22 --- Every phase will be freestanding and can be
guaranteed through subdivision review.
#23 --- We coordinated all this stuff through the
various departments, and have had goad cooperation with
the parks' and public works departments . � I would
respectfully request that we not be required to do 36'
roads . I f ' you add up all the roads and ROW it is 10
acres', and I don'.t think we need that much as+pha 1 t ,
_.. randview is 22.,.__ wide Hwy 2 West+ is
26' wide... I
don' t 'think .we need .. that. - w-i-de of' streets inside the
31
subdivision. We are not trying to attract a lot of
t.raf,fiIc'..hrough the 'residential portions 'to Grandview.
In conclusion, I think Buffalo Commons will be a great
place to live or work , We tried to address the future
: -devel opiment on _all7, .: acres , � [He recapped all the
highpoin-ts-"'of the plan. 1 I recommend, that you adopt
the�� f indinc s of fact f or the zone change as s.et I -forth
- in the Buffalo Commons document , and make any other
changes or- additions as appropriate. I truly believe
this PUD deserves an unanimous vote of confidence and
trust.
Bill Lei ers , President and CEO of Northwest Healthcare,
Sunnyvi ew Lane. I want to talk a little about how
Northwest Healthcare got involved with this. In 1988
Y went through a process of short --range and long-range
Planning as to where we as an organization are going,
and where health care is going[ and looking at the kind
of. -.'health ''care s e'rvi'c es will be' needed in this valley*
Oof' the things that came up was the issue of space.
Over the course of the years, we acqui red the 70 acres.
We had two specific purposes, One was to increase our
"lability 'to' provide health care in the future by
expanding'to approximately -31 acres. The second thing
!'w-as that we 'didn't' necessarily need the additional 50
acres , but ' this is our neighborhood, that we would like
to see' deval oped in a way that real l y - compliments what
el -se.. is going on. so the second part of the plan was
to inf 1 uen'ce the development of the rest of the hill .
That leads to the third part of it. We decided that
our mission as a health' care organization is not to be
land developers. We also recognize that this piece of
property is a prime piece of undeveloped property in
Kalispell. In order to do -justice to it,. we should
spend some time, energy and dollars to make sure it is
done' right to a quality level. I am concerned that
there -is some concern that we don't have a commitment
't a" this project., We do have a long standing commitment
to this 'project'. It is a place where we live and work
everyday. "'The other issue of timing, I find rather
i,nteres ting . Shortly after we acquired this land, the
city was working on annexing this land. We had a
discussion with the city to try and slow down the
annexati on until' we can get -'these- things to come
together The 'city felt that at that point , w.e needed.
to move through quickly with annexation. so we
accelerated our" pace . Now, they want us to' slow down
in the direction we are headed.
Brian Wood, Zoning Administrator for the City of
Kalispell, wanted a few comments on the record. I
don"want David to give you the wrong impression. The
city is fully supportive of this process, we have been
" 1-rom the outset . I think the PUD approach for the
zoning and development of the property is absolutely
Wj
the right way to go It There are, however, some
unresolved issues-; ' as John Parsons brought up tonight.
David a.' naturally sensitive in that it is his work and
that is understandable. I think an unaffected party
- may look at the staff report differently. My prime
concern, and David keeps deferring this bonding issue
.Y until subdivision. This ;is 'something we don't have the
ability to �da. He read from the Kalispell Zoning
Ordinance 'Section 27 .21. 080 (5) (m) whi ch ' requires that
('...city council shall require bonding or any other
appropriate collateral to ensure that all required
improvements shall be satisfactorily completed... " we
don't have the option to defer 'until subdivision.
David brought up enabling legislation. As the author
of this ordinance, I would have hoped that he had
checked into the legislation prior to authoring the
ordinance. As it stands now, with an adopted zoning
ordinance, you don't have the ability to grant a
variance- from this, so -I think 'it is important that
until tha:t issue is resolved, the hearing be postponed.
My opinion is that bonding has to ' be provided for, and
approved by Mr. Nei er .
Opposition Conrad Lungren, I am one of the owners of the 4-Seasons
_... - Motor Inn, 350 N. Main. I object to the hosphotel ,
since ' 1 am an owner in a motel. It appears that
Northwest Healthcare is getting into the commercial
hotel business, whether it is by offering a deal to
somebody, or financing someone , because they have a lot
of money . They area nonprofit organization, with lots
of money, competing with private enterprise. I've
worked hard_ for many years. I am very opposed to a
nonprof'i t organization competing with private
enterprise -in the motel business, whether they do it in
r their -'own name -or some else's name.
Per Storli, 640 E. Idaho, and he and his wife own a
motel ' ' in Kal ispel 1 . There are a lot of good things
they are planning with sidewalks and you name 3t.
Nobody. has spoken about money, and I would like t o ,
since that is the engine that drives most deals.
Kalispell Regional Hospital is a nonprofit
organization. I am sure that hospital representatives
wi 1 l tell me that Northwest Healthcare is not a part of
Ka i'spe 11 -Regional Hospital , and as such they ' are for
profit '-I don't think that ' washes . we have been here
.: "for a-lmost" 60 years and 'pay taxes . In ways we have
subsidized Kalispell Regional Hospital because they
have not paid ...the taxes. ,And I have no problems with
that. I think the hospital is a real benefit to our
society.'' But, when a nonprofit organization goes into
a commercial business like building apartments and
motels; -there is something that isn't quite right.
Winnif redstor1i, 640 E. Idaho, stated I am not
speaking as a motel person.,. ' becaus e ' my' husband has ,
33
but, just as a citizen. I feel that the hospital is a
benef i t , z have been there many times. I don't know
,�- about their'' f finances, but I am working at menta l
health, and I find 3.t very strange that profits made by
a nonprofit organization isn't put back into training
staff, or lowering medical costs. To me if it becomes
bigger' and bigger; it becomes more and more like a
company store. Mr. Di ers sai d ^they had s ever -a 1 hundred
peop l e- 'wor.ki' hg ' f or' :-the 'hospital . Now 'they are talking
about restaurants, hotels, more buildings, and pretty
soon it wi l 1 be 'l ik6' a huge � corporation. I always
figured- that nonprofit organizations would be like
Samaritan House or something not subsidized by medicaid
or medicare. Anything that benefits the public that is
subs ' di z ed by our tax dollars, then it should strictly
be for the public welfare and shouldn't became bigger
and bigger, because when they do that is when
corruption creeps in. The nurses, for example, have
came to me and begged me to write letters. They feel
threatened. It is getting too big. That is more
power, and the people around it don't own i t , so there
is a quest -ion of going belly up and losing everything .
There is n'o-accountability. We should put a stop to
this land grab, and, using a nonprofit organization as
a basis for borrowing money or having clout, because
then_ " -i t gets further -away from the- public good. And
I ' m sure thi s is an' issue that ' the whole county is
i, nt.eres t ed in and they didn't know about it until it
was in the paper.
There being no further public testimony, the public
hearing' was'' c 10s ed and the meeting opened to Board
discussion
Discussion Lopp and Hodgeboom felt that based on the complexity of
this ' 'proposal , " the lateness of the hour, and the
interest of those who could not attend or stay this
late to comment on this matter, he suggested continuing
the board discussion until next month.
Hash observed that we are bound by statutory time
limits and do not have the luxury of scheduling only
one contentious issue per meeting. Because another
r public hearing will be held before city council, she
argued to send a recommendation tonight. she feels
~_.that Mr. Greer has addressed the concerns, except for
the bonding ,
Lopp said that he personally, does not feel he is
prepared to come to a decision, because I would like to
`hear what ' Mr Nei er"' has to say. If I thought what he
had to say will affect public opinion, then I would
have no problem.
Kennedy believes the city is discouraging developments
I-Ik.e thi s and she' would like to see more PUD' s in
34
Kalispell. she thinks that staff ' s concerns are nit
picky and that the report is extremely negative, and
she commends Northwest Healthcare for a very fine
project. In her mind, Mr. Greer addressed all these
concerns very thoroughly. She would favor closing the
publ io hearing and forwarding a recommendation to city
council.
Where was considerable debate on whether to close the
publi-c hearing or not,
Bill Astle, attorney for Northwest Healthcare,
addressed the Board's concerns. I think you have the
. opportunity fOr:-the city attorney to_ participate, which
I__. think is always the case. I've learned that dealing
with -zoning and subd-lVisions, I deal with the city
attorney','I share my opinions and try to convince him
to my side . In this particular issue, I think that the
requirement for bonding clearly ties into if and when
the PUD also involves a subdivision. I think that Dave
was absolutely correct, that there is the enabling
-''legislation from state statute, whi ch gives
municipalities the right to create bonding at
subdivision. I see no authority in state statute, ---
.--that .' is , the enabling legislation, ---- I have never
'heard of i t - to create bonding at' the time of zoning.
So, what ' you are seeing here is 'zoning! with a planned
unit- development,' and the bonding'' 'is" going to be at
subdivision. Dave, chose in his advise to Northwest
.Healthcare, not' to include the subdivision, to leave
some flexibility. I think Dave is absolutely correct.
To elim" inate any 'fear of anything being slipped by
anybody, ' there is nothing behind what he presented.
Any pod'that he showed is going to be for any
particular developer that comes along and wants to do
a development` in' conjunction with the plan,' and create
a subdivision of that pod. Bingo -- comes the
subdivision bonding for the pod. I have a great deal
of respect - for what -Dave does, and has done bef ore f or
-the: city as'.'an employee, I've worked well with him and
felt he was excellent for this project and has proven
every bit of it . I think he has been unfairly maligned
--- I ' m going to get my licks in -- in terms of the work
he has'put into this. I think this is the best I've
seen, and.I agree with Pam Kennedy, that I would be
very reluctant for anyone else to try to put forth
something as grandiose as David Greer has done here.
it -just wouldn't be ' worth the t me . Dave had s a many
things he could have done with conventional zoning, but
he.ohos'e to' do something else. So,' when ' a subdivis-ion
comes abbot, you can si.mp 1 y say that the city council,
under Vari oust` 6 la il m' s s h a 11 require , bonding . So do
what you ' hare" to, do,," at that next level
.
35
Hash said that the zoning ordinance clearly states that
` city c ou c i f shall require bonding. It is not up to us
to make a determination on that.
Brian wood maintained that it should have been part of
the plan submitted.
Hash asked Brian if he had case law, statutory law, or
otherwise to distinguish Bill Astl e' s position that it
be imposed on the PUD and subdivision at the same time?
Brian responded that he was speaking as the city zoning
administrator, not the city attorney. He fol l ow's
Bill's logic, but in reading through the zoning
ordinance, he doesn't find anything regarding that, at
all.
Fred Hodgeboom said that logically bonding should be
required with the development. -But requiring bonding
up front for projects like this will be a real barrier
to ever having another PUD.
Considerable debate ensued on the issue of bonding as
is stated in the zoning ordinance section
27.21.030(5)(m). It was bath city and FRDO staffs'
contention that 'the application did not completely
address all the issues, The Board felt that it was up
to citycouncil to require bonding, and to obtain an
q g,
opinion from the city attorney.
Motion Bahr moved to submit a recommendation to the Kalispell
City ' Coun y 1 to rezone from RA-1, 'B--'3 , and H-1 to a
residential mixed use planned unit development in the
RA-1 zone, those properties submitted far the rezone by
the Northwest Healthcare, more specifically referred to
as Buffalo Commons, sanders seconded,
Discussion followed on the motion, to adopt findings of
fact to support the recommendation. Bahr stated that
the city council is the repository for finding out
whether there is a bonding requirement, and whether
this has been adequately reviewed by the city attorney.
That was his motion. Hash was steadfast that findings
needed to be made to support the motion.
The Board proceeded through the statutory criteria for
a zone change, and made findings as follows:
Does The Reauested Zone Comp l v with The Master Plan?
The subject property is within the jurisdiction of the
Kalispell City -County Master Plan, According to the
1 map of the master plan, the property is currently
designated High Density Residential", with a maximum
density of ' 4o dwelling units per acre, with some
"Medical" to the southwest, and "Urban Residential"
36
near the highway. The proposed Mixed Use RA-1 PUD
concept is c+onsiderecl in compliance with the Master
Plan.
Is The Re nested Zone Desi ned To Lessen Congestion In
The Streets And To Faci 1 itate The Adequate Provision Of
Transportation Water Sewer, -Schools Parks And other
Public Requirements?
This finding cannot be made. Congestion in the street
is caused by an overburden on the street of traffic.
The requested PUD zone without financial guarantees, as
required by Ordinance, may cause undue congestion.
This because traffic generation is a function of the
intensity of uses that are allowed within a given area
and access to that' area. While the applicant has
submitted a plan on paper that appears to be adequate,
the applicant will not be the 'developer, so without
those required financial guarantees for improvements
this finding cannot be made . Generally the PUD concept
is considered one of the better methods for dealing
with the provisions of this section. Staff considers
the Residential Mixed Use RA-1 PUD as an excellent
method for developing this property,
Will The Requested Zone Secure Saf et From Fire Pani c
And Other Dangers?
The development of this project would secure from fire,
panic, and oth-er dangers if safeguards are designed
into the proposal. While each phase is generally
designed to stand on its own, complete safeguards would
require the funding necessary to ensure their
installation.
Development within this zone is subject to development
standards including: lot coverage, maximum building
IP
height, and the provision of off-street parking.
Will The Requested Change Promote The Health And
. Oener.al Welfare?"
The purpose of the City's zoning ordinance is to
promote the general health"and welfare and does so by
implementing the City -County Master Plan. The Master
Plan generally would support the requested PUD.
Designation of this area as Residential Mixed use RA-1
PUP would serve the Flathead region with additional
residential, medical, and commercial development. In
addition, this area has direct access to a major
highway snaking it � a good location for medically related
uses
The zoning ordinance provides a mechanism for public
input and review for all zone change requests. This
process offers an opportunity to ensure that any
37
changes to the Official Zoning Map are done in. the
general public interest. Additionally, other review
kj
mechanisms are in place to ensure that development is
in compliance with all applicable safety codes.
Will The Requested Zone Provide For Adequate Light And
Airy
The RA-1 PUD proposal will provide an integrated system
of open spaces and landscape amenities throughout all
land use "pods". The proposed density of development
is believed to be substantially less than permitted by
the -PUD regulations or by the underlying zoning
district. Please, also, conuslt the PUD Narritive
Supplement included with the application.
Will The Requested Zone Change Prevent The Overcrowding
of Land?
Overcrowding of land occurs when development out -paces
_ or exceeds ' the environmental or service limitations of
the property. The Subdivision and Zoning Regulations
control the intensity requirements' that a property can
`-be developed with. Adequate infrastructure is in place
or can be provided at the time of development to
accommodate the land uses allowed in the requested
zone. No significant negative impact is expected.
Will The Requested Zone Avoid. Undue Concentration Of
Peon le.
Concentration of people relates to the land use
permitted by 'a particular zone. The proposed zone
change would not increase residential density in the
area. Infrastructure exists or can be provided which
supports the proposed change. The zoning ordinance
covers the intensity of use that would be permitted in
this zone. An undue concentration of people would
result if the' property i s developed at a level which
exceeds the �envi ronmental or service carrying capacity
of' the land which would not happen. The proposed
zoning will insure that the site is properly developed.
Does The Requested Zone Give Consideration To The
Particular Suitability Of The Pro e rt For Particular
Uses?
The subject site is well suited for uses permitted
within the proposed Residential Mixed Use RA-1 PUD.
The property appears to be of adequate size and
adequate access to facilities for the type of uses
permitted in the proposed zone.
Does The Requested Z ons n Ci v e Reasonable Consideration
To' The. Character Of This District? ....
38 .
The proposed PUD is designed to be compatible with the
med-i'oal 66mmunit-y and with the surrounding residential
land uses. The PUD design includes a transitional land
use theme as extending from the area of Grandview Drive
t o US Hwy 9 3' . L and ' us e density and 'intensity of uses
increases in that direction. With few exeptions, the
proposed uses would normally be compatible to RA-1, H-
1, R-3 , and B-1 zoning districts .
The property is ideal f or the intended uses due to its
location, size', and compatibility with nearby land
uses. Nearly 50% of' the property is reserved for
office or medical -related uses. Open space treatments
and 1 ocational considerations provide for' a logical
blending of residential and saml l retail uses with the
medical land uses. Adequate public services are also
readily avilable to serge the intended uses.
Would The Propused Zoning Conserve The Value Of The
The proposed uses are intended to complement the
character of the surrounding properties and be 'bui 1 t in
'd regulated - fs:shi on to insure excellence in design and
function. The quality of the proposed PUD, as measured
by the transportation system, extensive landscaping,
provision of open space, architectural control, and
scale of development are all positive elements that
should add to the value of this and adjoining
properties.
Will The Re nested Zone Chan a Encourage The Most
A ro riate Use Of The Land Throughout The
Jurisdiction.
The requested Zoning classification would be consistent
with the Kalispell City -County Master Plan. The Plan
and the existing permitted uses under the zoning
ordinance generally identifies this area for this type
of concept.
Amended Motion Kennedy moored to amend the motion to adopt the findings
of fact ''as - .di sdussed by the Board. Bahr seconded the
amendment to hi s ' mots. on . On a roll call vote Kennedy,
Bahr, Sanders, Hodgeboom, Carlson, Lopp , and Hash voted
aye.
A roll call Grote was taken on the original motion.
Lopp, Carlson' Bahr, Hodgeboom, Sanders, Kennedy, and
Hash gated unanimously in favor. The motion carried on
_.. -a 7-.0 Grote.
ZONING TEXT Next was a request by Northwest Healthcare to amend the
�- AMENDMENT / City of Kalispell Zoning Ordionce to allow hotels when
DEFINE in association with hospitals in the RA-1 and H-1 zones
HOSPHOTEL and to define this type of facility.
39
Staff Report Parsons presented staff review of report #KZTA-95--1,
faith a recommendation for' denial .
Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the
zoning text amendment to define and allow a hosphotel
in the AA-l' and H--1 zoning classification.
In Favor Bill Piers, handed out some information on the concept
of hosphotels. This concept has been around for a
number of years, and it is something we've considered
for a number of years. As health care systems have
changed, and more patients are not staying overnight in
the hospital or leaving the hospital sooner, we have
identified a need for those people to stay some where
if they are not ready to drive to Libby or Pol son, etc.
As a regional referral center and having long term
patients that are in the intensive care unit, that
there is a need for families. As we have evaluated
this, two things came to mind to cause us to continue
to address this issue (1) convenience and (2)
aff-ordability. convenience breaks down into physical
convenience to the hospital without having a car.
Secondly, sometimes this need comes up immediately, for
f example someone has just finished their cancer
radiation therapy treatment and doesn't feel well
enough to drive. As Mr. Lundgren indicated, we have
talked with a number of facilities in the valley trying
.__ to address those issues, and many of the facilities
have tried to work with us to the best of their
abilities, but they -can only lower their costs so far.
So, looking at what is available today and looking at
increasing need, as outpatient care increases, we
planned for this in the PUD . The issue of the 20% and
subs i d i Z'a't i'_ on' was something we also addressed, and that
is why we are looking at this being a commercial
motel/hotel and not a Ronald McDonald house. Many
communities have those things, but they are 100%
subsidized. our goal was to have a mechanism to have
a motel that is designed in such a way as to have a
breaking point where those f of ks who can of f ord to pay
full fare, whether it is tourists, salesmen, put some
-of that money into the pot so we can offer more rooms
without any outside subsidization. We feel comfortable
saying � that a minimum of '20% of those rooms wi 11 be
available at any time at reduced rate. our projections
show the average will be closer to 40% . Based on what
we have going on in health care, we could have that
filled up, but over the course of the entire year, and
with the overall business plan, we are looking at a
minimum of 20%, an average of 40%, and a peak of 70% .
Some may argue that Day ' s Inn is convenient, but there
is the problem of crossing Hwy 93. And there is still
the issue of affordability. During the peak of the
tourist season 10 off of a 70 roomis not
affordable. This will not happen tomorrow, but we are
40
trying to lay the groundwork to fill the identified
need
There were no other proponents. The public hearing was
opened to opponents of the text amendment.
opposition Conrad Lungren, spoke in opposition to this concept
that has been presented. The arguments I had earlier
are still appropriate. As I read this note in the
paper, it says a ratio of 8 commercial to 2 medically
related rooms, is not in keeping with' the ordinance.
The argument here is the bid for the 20%. what about
the 80%-that will be commercial. It seems to me that
the idea of putting this facility in will be 80%
commercial. who is going to police 'it? If the
hospital sells it to somebody, how will they know if it
is going to be' 20% medical people, or not? The Day' s
Inn is handy, and I don't know where the $70 rate comes
from 'that Mr. Di ers mentioned. I don't know of
salesmen who will pay a rate like that. He says they
can afford it, but they sure don't pay it.
There being no other opponents to the text amendment,
the public --hearing was closed- and it- was opened to
Board discussion.
Discussion Kennedy explained to Mr.. Lundgren that the Board's task
was todecide if 'a hosphotel was beneficial for our
community,, and that the ratio of use or who will police
it -was not within our pervi ew . She would like to see
the ratio adjusted, as well, but how to make sure that
is happening was a question, Hash said she would like
at see a Ronald McDonald house that is fully
subsidized.
Mr. Di ers said that at times i t could be as high as
100%, but based on their overall business plan a
guaranteed minimum would be the 20% . Rooms will always
be made available for patients and families.
L.opp pointed out that given the community concern with
Second Mind, he feels a hosphote 1 would generate a
similar reaction.
Hodgeboom thought that a range could be established to
_ ref l'ect the ' intent of' the proposed facility.
Considerable discussion on the number ratios continued.
Motion Kennedy moved to approve the zoning text amendment to
allow a Hosphotel as part of a Residential Mixed Use
POD, and amend the definition to ref 1 ect that at least
a of the beds be' reserved . for patients and/or family
members. Lopp seconded. on a roll call vote
Hodgeboom, Kennedy, Carlson, sanders voted aye. Hash
41
and Lopp voted nay. Bahr abstained. The motion
carried on a vote of 4--2
--1.
ZONING TEXT The final public hearing was on a request by the City
AMENDMENTS / of Kalispell to amend the City of Kalispell Zoning
INTENT OF SectiIon 27 . to . olo Intent, by' rewording the intent
R.A.-2 section 'to al 1 ow f or a more diverse use of the RA-2
zone.
Staff Report
Parsons read through staff report #KZ .A. Aw 95 w 2 , with a
recommendation to amend the zoning text as requested.
Public Hearing
The public hearing was opened. There was no one in the
J _
audience to speak either in favor or in opposition to
the proposed text amendment. The public hearing was
closed.
Discussion,
The Board discussed the reason and intent of the
requested zoning text amendment, regarding the RA-� 2
zone. Hash wanted to know if this was expanding the
central and inner city high intensity uses because the
commercial core was expanding? Lopp felt it was a
classic leap frog scenario, and that it was put in the
text with foresight, not as an oversight. It was
pointed out that more intensive zones are not as
restricted as the RA-2 . The use allowances in the RA-1
and RA-2 zones were compared extensively.
Motion
Kennedy moved to forward to the city council the zoning
text amendment. modified to delete the reference to
"This -ice- 4-n-t" ent.lerd- t o -.4t a r va -fix~ b ti-f f-er~ b e t w e e n
evmmereiai-�--&rt&---s�-r4)am---resielential-� -�� .'� Lopp
seconded. .. on _- a-- roll* c-a11' 'v- ote Sanders, Kennedy, Bahr,
Lopp, Hodgeboom, Carlson and. Hash voted aye. The
motion carried 7-0 to delete the sentence indicated and
forward the definition for the RA-2 zone as modified.
Motion Kennedy moved to take the definition as amended and
de l et e "the p h r a s e " ... e e n, t r a I - and- inner- -c4-t-r ixs-e- -and
n0t-f -Or --s -n- -U-3-�: Hod.geboom seconded. on a
roll- call vote Hodgeboom and Kennedy voted aye.
Sanders, ... Bahr, Lopp, Hash and Carlson voted no. The
motion failed on a 2-5 vote.
OLIO BUSINESS Carlson gave an update on the legislative climate
pertaining to land use planning processes.
NEW BUSINESS There was no new business.
ADJOURNMENT The meeting was ad11
journed (finally) at 2:15 a.m.
D i
Therese Fax Hash, President z beth Ontko, Recording Secretary
APPROVED: �