Staff Report dated 02/17/99 Annexation, CUP, Preliminary PlatFlaM I Regional Development Of
723 5th Avenue East - Room 414
Kalispell, Montana 59901
Phone: (406) 758-5980
Fax: (406) 758-5781
Al Thelen, Interim City Manager
City of Kalispell
P.O. Box 1997
Kalispell, MT 59903
Re: Unicore Development (Vincent) Annexation, Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary
Plat
The Kalispell City -County Planning Board met on February 9, 1999, and held a pub i
hearing to consider a request by Unicore Development, Inc. on behalf of John and Brend
Lee Vincent for initial zoning of R-3 upon annexation into the city. The property propose
for annexation contains approximately 2.6 acres and is located on the north side
California Street between 5th and 6th Ave. E.N. There was also a request for a Condition
Use Permit to construct a 10 residential cluster development, and for Preliminary PI
approval to construct Chokecherry Ridge Condos, a 10-unit condominium, consisting •
two condominium fourplexes and a condominium duplex.
Tom Jentz, of the Flathead Regional Development Office, presented staff reports #KA-99-2,
Initial Zoning Request; #KCU-99-1, Conditional Use Permit to construct a 10 unit
residential cluster development; and #KPP-99-1, request for Preliminary Plat approval to
construct Chokecherry Ridge Condos. The staff recommended that the Board forward
recommendations to approve all 3 applications, with their conditions as listed in the
reports. Jentz noted that the proposed site plan did not provide adequate parking and that
compliance with the attached conditions would likely result in the loss of 1-2 units.
At the public hearing, Max Battle, representing Unicore and the petitioners, spoke in favor
of the petitions. He stated that they were in general agreement with the conditions as listed
in the staff reports with a few minor changes. The petitioner asks that condition #5 in staff
report #KPP-99-1 be amended to allow main trunk lines to be brought from the city water
& sewer services rather than direct lines to each unit as stated. And they wanted it noted
that though they are willing to have an agreement with the city for access to the park area,
it is the one area of the property that shows marginal soil instability.
There were 21 people that spoke against the proposed annexation, zoning, conditional use
permit and preliminary plat. The main concerns were that the project was not in character
with the surrounding area, that the property's soil is not stable, and issues of traffic and
the safety of their children because of increased traffic. There were also concerns voiced
over environmental and wildlife impacts and that the community as a whole would rather
see the city put a park on the property or have several single family homes on the property
Providing Community Planning Assistance To:
• Flathead County - City of Columbia Falls - City of Kalispell - City of Whitefish
that match the density and character of the surrounding neighborhood. There were letters
and petitions in opposition to the project entered into record at the meeting as well, and
copies of those are included with the staff reports.
After closing the public hearing, the Board discussed the applications extensively A motion
was made to adopt staff report #KCU-99-1 as findings of fact and recommend approval of
the conditional use permit subject to the conditions as stated in the report. The motion to
approve the conditional use pen -nit failed on a vote of 5 against, 2 in favor, and 1 excused.
It had been stated by Max Battle, representing the petitioners, that they wanted all 3
petitions considered as a whole, that they did not want any one approved without the
others. There was another motion made to deny the applications as a whole, based on
public comments, safety issues, incompatibility to the single family neighborhood, and
insufficient design to meet preliminary plat criteria. The motion to deny the applications
passed on a vote of 5 in favor, 2 opposed, and I excused.
The Kalispell City -County Planning Board is forwarding these recommendations, to deny
the applications, to the Kalispell City Council for consideration at their next regular
meeting. Please contact this board or Tom Jentz at the Flathead Regional Development
• if you have any questions regarding this matter.
Sincerely
JJ/TJ/tI
H:\TRANSM1T\KAL\1999\KA-99-2
Kalispell City Council
Unicore Development
Page 2 of 3
UNICORE DEVELOPMENT
_JAIEQUEST FOR ANNEXATIONAND INITIAL ZONIN('k
FLATHEAD REGIONAL DEVELOPMENTOFFICE
REPORTSTAFF • •.
FEBRUARY 1999
A report to the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and the Kalispell City Council
regarding the annexation and initial zoning of 2.6 acres of land. A hearing has been
scheduled before the Kalispell City -County Planning Board for February 9, 1999, in the
Kalispell City Council Chambers. The Planning Board will forward a recommendation to
the Kalispell City Council for final action.
Petitioner: John J. and Brenda Lee Vincent
Unicore Development Inc.
P.O. Box 2270
Kalispell, MT 59901
B. Size and Location of Property: The 2.6 acres of land proposed for annexation is
located on the north side of California St. between 5"' and 6 Av. E.N. The legal
description of the property is attached in Exhibit A.
C. Existing zoning: The existing zoning for the site in the Flathead County Zoning
Regulations is R-1 Suburban Residential. The R-1 district provides for single-
family houses and minimum lot size of one acre.
D. Proposed Zoning: The proposed zoning in the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance is R-3
Residential, reducing minimum lot size to 7,000 square feet. Simultaneous
applications have been received for a conditional use permit and preliminary plat
approval on the site to construct 10 cluster development dwellings consisting of
two condominium fourplexes and a condominium duplex.
E. Existing Land Use: The site includes a building historically used as a commercial
ice house, which is proposed to be removed.
F. Adjacent Land Uses and Zoning: The general land use character of the area is
single-family residential to the south and west, and undeveloped riparian area to
the north and east.
North: Stillwater River, undeveloped McElroy & Wilkin site,
County R-1 zoning
South: California St. single-family residential, Kalispell R-3 zoning
East: Undeveloped remainder site, County R-1 zoning
West: Single family residential and Lawrence Park,
Kalispell R-3 and P-1 zoning
Sewer service: City of Kalispell
Water service: City of Kalispell
Solid Waste:
City of Kalispell
Gas:
Montana Power Company
Electric:
Pacific Power/Flathead Electric
Phone:
Centurytel
Police:
City of Kalispell
Fire:
Kalispell Fire Department
Schools:
School District #5, Kalispell
The statutory basis for reviewing a change in zoning is set forth by 76-2-205, M.C.A.
Findings of fact for the zone change request are discussed relative to the itemized criteria
described by 76-2-203, M.C.A.
The Kalispell City County Master Plan Map designates this area as urban
residential, open space, and the transition area in between. The site is along a
boundary between more intensive and less intensive land use designations, and
the map boundaries are generalized. The proposed zoning would be in substantial
compliance with the land use designation of the master plan map and furthers the
goals in the master plan of providing for a diversity of housing needs in the
community.
2. Is the requested zone designed to lessen congestion in the streets?
The rezoning would provide for a moderate increase in residential density and
traffic generation on California St. and the adjacent grid street system, but it is not
anticipated to result in undue congestion. The site has suitable access by
California St., a paved city street with curb and gutter.
3. Will the requested zone secure safety from fire, panic, and other dangers?
The site includes a steep bank subject to risks of slope instability and erosion, as
discussed in a letter from the Flathead Conservation District (1/25/99), as well as
100-year floodplain of the Stillwater River at the bottom of the bank. Conditions to
mitigate hazards are anticipated on the conditional use and preliminary plat
applications accompanying the zoning petition. Access for fire and other
emergency services is adequate.
4. Will the requested zone promote the health and general welfare?
This annexation and rezoning to an urban density will promote the general welfare
9
of the community by improving the level of public services to the site, creating a
more efficient public service area (the other properties along California St. are
already in the city), providing for orderly urban growth, and contributing to the City's
tax base. As discussed above, the proposed zoning would also furthers the goals
in the master plan of providing for a diversity of housing needs in the community.
5. Will the requested zone provide for ad2guate light and air?
No significant impact is anticipated. Both the existing and proposed zoning
districts include building setback and height standards that provide for adequate
light and air between buildings.
concentration6. Will the requested zone prevent the overcrowding of land and avoid unduM
.-•• y
The proposed residential zoning would substantially comply with the master plan.
The extension of R-3 zoning beyond the building site area at the top of the slope to
include the perimeter bank would allow for clustering and potential crowding of that
building site area, but the suitability of the -density would be addressed in the
conditional use review required for cluster developments.
_ - - _ •• r.JIM • _ 1-1 • -•
IIIIZI
The proposed annexation and rezoning would improve the level of public services
to the site and create a more efficient public service area for the City, since the
other properties along California St. are already in the city. California St. is a city
streets with approximately 30' width, curb and gutter, and a sidewalk on the other
side of the street. Annexation would provide for access to police, fire, and other
municipal services. City sewer and water and other utilities are in place within the
street right-of-way abutting the site.
9. Does the requested zone give consideration to the particular suitability of the
property for particular uses?
The preliminary plat application accompanying the zoning petition proposes
dedication of the slough area and north portion of the parcel as a city park, an
extension of Lawrence Park. Accordingly, staff recommends that this portion of
the site be zoned P-1, consistent with the use of the site. As discussed below,
slope stability and flood hazards on part of the site are anticipated to be addressed
in the conditional use and preliminary plat applications.
10. Does the requested zone give reasonable consideration to the character of
the district?
R-3 zoning would be consistent with the adjacent R-3 zoning to the south and
west. The surrounding land use character is single-family housing and open space,
and the proposed density is inconsistent with this established character. The
3
extension of R-3 zoning beyond the building site area at the top of the slope to
include the perimeter bank would allow for clustering multifamily housing onto a
smaller site, in comparison to surrounding single-family housing density. The
suitability of the density and design, however, would be addressed in the
conditional use review required for cluster developments.
A notice of public hearing was mailed to property owners within 150 feet of the site
approximately 15 days prior to the hearing. Comments have been received in
opposition from neighbors Steve Cheman, Estelle Will, and Ed White, with
concerns that the proposed density is incompatible with the quiet, single family
neighborhood; too much density is proposed on an environmentally sensitive site;
and property values may decline. Jon Heselwood commented in favor of the
development but concerned about parking congestion and the incompatibility of
two-story structures.
Annexation of the site and expansion of R-3 zoning to include the site is orderly
growth, which is anticipated to conserve property -values in the vicinity. Neighbors
have expressed concern, however, about the compatibility of the specific
multifamily development proposed on the site, as discussed above on the effects
on character.
throughout12. Will the requested zone encourage the most appropriate use of the land
.
As discussed above, the annexation and expansion of R-3 zoning to include the
site would substantially comply with the land use pattern recommended in the
master plan, improve the level of public services to the site, create a more efficient
public service area, and provide for orderly urban growth.
Staff recommends that the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission
adopt Staff Report #KA-99-2 as findings of fact and recommend that the City Council
adopt P-1 zoning on the land proposed for dedication as a city park and R-3 zoning on
the remainder of the site, as described in Exhibit B.
4
Mrilflu
l
A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 28 NORTH, RANGE 21
WEST, PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, MONTANA, FLATHEAD COUNTY, MONTANA AND
MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT I OF CERTIFICATE OF
SURVEY NUMBER 10223, RECORDS OF FLATHEAD COUNTY AND WHICH POINT
IS THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE :•• ON ALONG SAID•RBOUNDARY, D
OF 90.88 FEET TO A POINT;
THENCE S00009'57"W, AND LEAVING SAID NORTH BOUNDARY, A DISTANCE
281.48 FEET TO ♦ POINT;
THENCE S80036'21 "E, A DISTANCE OF 38.02 FEET TO A POINT;
THENCE N82049'21 "E, A DISTANCE OF 116.94 FEET TO A POINT;
THENCE S54055'22"E, A DISTANCE OF 90.71 FEET TO A POINT;
THENCE S42039'54"E, A DISTANCE OF 121.06 FEET TO A POINT;
THENCE S31 °15'22"E, A DISTANCE OF 59.62 FEET TO A POINT WHICH POINT
LIES AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH RIGHT -OF- WAY BOUNDARY OF
EAST CALIFORNIA STREET AND THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY BOUNDARY OF
SIXTH AVENUE EAST NORTH;
THENCE S76011'00"W, ON AND ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY
BOUNDARY, A DISTANCE OF 445.36 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
THIS TRACT CONTAINS 2.628 ACRES AND SUBJECT TO AND TOGETHER WITH
ALL APPURTENANT EASEMENTS OF RECORD.
5
A tract of land located in the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 8,
Township 28 North, Range 21 West, Principal Meridian, Montana, Flathead County,
Montana, and more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the Southeast comer of Tract 1 of Certificate of Survey number 10223,
records of Flathead County, and which point is the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence North 00' 09'57" East, along the easterly boundary of said Tract 1,
a distance of 121.16 feet;
Thence North 87' 40'42" East, leaving the easterly boundary of said Tract 1, a distance
of 37.54 feet;
Thence North 20' 04'57" East, a distance of 156.66 feet;
Thence North 000 09'57" East, a distance of 20.26 feet;
Thence South 800 36'21" East, a distance of 38.02 feet;
Thence North 82' 49'21" East, a distance of 116.94 feet;
Thence South 540 55'22" East, a distance of 90.71 feet;
Thence South 420 39'54" East, a distance of 121.06 feet;
Thence South 310 15'22" East, a distance of 59.62 feet; to a point which is also the
intersection of the northerly right of way boundary of East California Street and the
easterly right of way boundary of Sixth Avenue East North;
Thence South 760 11'00" West, a distance of 445.36 feet to the TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING. Said tract contains 1.775 acres and is subject to and together with all
appurtenant easements of record.
A tract of land to be dedicated as park land and located in the Southwest quarter of the
Northwest quarter of Section 8, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, Principal Meridian,
Montana, Flathead County, Montana, and more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the Southeast comer of Tract 1 of Certificate of Survey 10223, records
of Flathead County, Thence North 000 09'57" East, along the easterly boundary of said
Tract 1, a distance of 121.16 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
C.
Thence North 00' 09'57" East, a distance of 450.78 feet;
Thence South 89' 45'42" East, a distance of 90.88 feet;
Thence South 000 09'57" West, a distance of 301.74 feet;
Thence South 20' 04'57" West, a distance of 156.66 feet;
Thence South 87' 40'42" West, a distance of 37.54 feet to the TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING. Said tract contains .853 acres and is subject to and together with all
appurtenant easements of record.
� e
_
"
000
7P
0110
� F
subject-pr
Z I
a 2 f
_ f i
fif
Ar
y + L {
Fl
d - l
• i l `
2
Twr-
...... i^iF.. .. i
a Fi
�....
5 s 6
-— 6
12
J 5-
2 U
_- ' 7 1
, 1 D
i
r at r 4, �,.,V` '*sc�,,.
4 L
-- , y ——--
—, s 2A
fi 1 , - - _kA
112
i ? '-� T
2 a i a 5i 1
UNICORE DEVELOPMENT INC jOHN J. & BR NDA L. VI CENT
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, ANNEXATION & ZONE CHANGE,
* CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW
A CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION WITH 10 CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT DWELLINGS
CHANGE FROM R-I, SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL EVERGREEN ZONING DISTRICT
TO R-S, RESIDENTIAL - KALISPELL ZONING DISTRICT
FILE #IAA-99-2, ICU-99—I, LPL" 9 —I = -LOT D � /90
Flathead Regional Development Office
723 •Ave.Room i.
Kalispell, MT 59901
ff"ETITION : ZONING AMENDMENT
CITY OF KALISPELL
1. NAME OF APPLICANT: Unicore Development, In
?. MAIL ADDRESS.ap .0 Fox 2270
3. CITY/STATE/ZIP: Kalispell,Mt 59901 PHONE: 406-755-1221
4. INTEREST IN PROPERTY: Condo Cluster Development
5. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT: ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT: R-3 Cluster
IF THE REQUEST PERTAINS TO AN AMENDMENT TO THE TEXT.�
ZONING REGULATIONS, COMPLETE FOLLOWING:
A. What is the proposed zoning text amendment?
Cluster Condo R-3 Zoning Requested
IF THE REQUEST PERTAINS TO AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP,
PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING:
A. Address of the property: California St. , Kalispell, EN
B. Legal Description: SV:1/4 NW 1/4 , Sec 8, T28N, R21W
(Lot and 13lock of Subdivision; Tract #)
Sec 8, T28N 1221 W
(Section, Township, Range) (Attach sheet for metes and bounds)
C. The present zoning of the above property is:
D. The proposed zoning of the above property is: R-3 Condo Cluster
E. State the changed or changing conditions that make the proposed
amendment necessary:
10 unit Condo,Cluster Development
on 9 plus acres.
1
Him
A. Promoting the Master Plan —,,Accordance with Master Plan as a residential
area.
B. Lessening congestion in the streets and providing safe access
Off street parking provided Existing street acces is Cal. St.
C. Promoting safety from fire, panic and other dangers
_RequP.gtj ng annAvai-i nn city G fKalispell
D. Promoting the public interest, health, comfort, convenience, safety and general
welfare Minimum ground disturbance. Development will meet
applicable codesfor safty and welfare.
E. Preventing the overcrowding of land
Cluster development
F. Avoiding undue concentration of population
Residential area- low density Condo ; Cluster Development
Over 0 acres of land 10 units
G. Facilitating the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewage, schools,
parks and other public facilities
Annexation request will be requested from the cit .
FYi sti ng strPat i i i 1 prow
H. Giving reasonable consideration to the character of the district
Unit design will blend into surrounding landscape_
I. Giving consideration to the peculiar suitability of the property for particular
uses _V; ew property with privacy _
J. Protecting and conserving the value of buildings
Construction to meet city codes.
K. Encouraging the most appropriate use of land by assuring orderly growth
Condo Cluster Development will minimze land distnrbanr-P_
The signing of this application signifies approval for F.R.D.O. staff to be present on
the property for routine monitoring and inspection during approval process.
(App icant (Date)
3
• � Ott . ;����+l�i�f+�►��1
A. Pre -Application Meeting:
A discussion with the Planning Director or designated member of staff must
precede filing of this application. Among topics to be discussed are: Master
Plan compatibility with the application, compatibility of proposed zone change
with surrounding zoning classifications, and the application procedure.
B. Completed application form.
C. Application fee per schedule, made payable to the Flathead Regional
Development Office.
Fee Schedule
Zone Change:
Basefee........................................................................$400.00
For first 80 acres of area of the request.................Add $5/acre
For requests for 81 - 160 acres.............................Add $3/acre
For requests covering 161 acres or more...............Add $1/acre
Amendment to Zoning Text......................................................$300.00
PUD Zoning Review:
Residential....................................................................$400.00
Commercial...................................................................$500.00
MixedUse.....................................................................$650.00
D. The application must be accepted as complete by the FRDO staff thirty (30)
days prior to the date of the meeting at which it will be heard in order that
requirements of state statutes and the zoning regulations may be fulfilled.
A. Application Contents:
Petition for zone change signed by at least 50% of the property owners in
the area for which the change in zoning classification is sought.
2. A map showing the location and boundaries of the property.
3. A list of the names and mail addresses of all property owners within 150
feet of the subject property as shown on the Assessor's roll.
Example
Assessor's S-T-R Lot/Tract Property Owner
No. No. and Mail Address
4. A title report of the subject property.
51
W
a
x
LL
0 2947co 6 3
W -� ZONE A2
z
a
z_ 2945
_ -O
1
2948
ZONE C� . nd.
1
2940
2938
2937
ONE C
x RM67
ZONE C
•
COUNTY ROAD
'2929
ZONE A4 `
IVERSIDE ROAD
x RM 148 1
5 ZONE
\NTH --- �\
AVENUE
City of Kalispell
AREA NOT INCLUDED
0 •
ZONE
N
STILLWATER
RIVER
?19
291
77 ZONE B-N
RM147
ZONE C
LIMIT OF
DETAILED JI
a
-
--'-- 32 �I33
920.
I•
0 �' I
Evergi
_ Q �2915
f �
.3031 —_-- 2998.
lk
10 hrta i i �y t` r
'�',, ,l, 2998
_ 5
o I ( z9/3
.]W.A Gravel
e{ervora G It COurTe '`. .. tt• �. — ?9ao ' -,rf
kV
— - !
€ e 3n
ate, I Is a o ` II ! •29i8 . \'•
1
---------------
i,
�•� I Gravgl Pit i a
2908
2975• - � f �t -... .C%"•�• SA T ir •,� •/ J
ir
} Aid g Il i/'� Co e __
.. _.� ` t ks t �Aq� t M
2-
�.,`� •,� ! ,,`�4 i _ - �. �_/1�• j:
' •itsA ` A - '� /-_ r'-'� {lei. ; r� f(
2958 ul f'
-'
1 $Nl
t�
290,9
t
�1;�� 8L t � t�t er&e f . �;� - - ' . `•� _-- _ `
fad
' O
jS
Foo ridge _.j_4�1
16
..loge i fi N r •�
brld Xrav_el, s i
a .6
-- Pit
ootbrid
g
e• 1
Kalispell
'` Municipal Airport
Y
z
!2"
II
10
L
g
if
i
10
9
8
UNICORE DEVELOPMENT
FLATHEADREGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
CONDITIONAL PERMIT
w s. REPORT
,.•r ...
FEB-11
A report to the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Kalispell City Council regarding a
request for a conditional use permit to construct a 10 residential cluster development. A
hearing has been scheduled before the Kalispell City -County Planning Board for February 9,
1999, in the Kalispell City Council Chambers. The Planning Board will forward a
recommendation to the Kalispell City Council for final action.
A. Petitioner: John J. and Brenda Lee Vincent
Unicore Development Inc.
P.O. Box 2270
Kalispell, MT 59901
B. Size and Location of Property: The 2.6 acres of land is located on the north side of
California St. between 5"' and 6th Av. E.N. The property is described as a portion of
Assessors Tract 23A in Section 8, T28N, R21 W, P.M., M., Flathead County,
Montana.
C. Summary of Request: The request is for a conditional use permit to construct a 10
residential cluster development consisting of two condominium fourplexes and a
condominium duplex. The application proposes the following: a new paved,
private roadway, 24' wide with curb and gutter; planting of trees and shrubs to ease
the effect on neighbors; a decorative sign; and two-story buildings set back at least
20 feet from the top of the river bank. Simultaneous applications have been
received for annexation, a zone change to R-3 Residential in the Kalispell Zoning
Ordinance, and preliminary plat approval to create condominium units.
D. Adjacent Land Uses and Zoning: The general land use character of the area is
single-family residential to the south and west, and undeveloped riparian area to the
north and east.
North: Stillwater River, undeveloped McElroy & Wilkin site,
County R-1 zoning
South: Calif omia St. single-family residential, Kalispell R-3 zoning
East: Undeveloped remainder site, County R-1 zoning
West: Single family residential and Lawrence Park,
Kalispell R-3 and P-1 zoning
Sewer service: City of Kalispell
Water service: City of Kalispell
;• i ;Jq•' !^
Gas:
Montana Power Company
Electric:
Pacific Power/Flathead Electric
Phone:
Centurytel
Police:
City of Kalispell
Fire:
Kalispell Fire Department
Schools:
School District #5, Kalispell
F. Master PlanDesignation: The Kalispell City County Master Plan Map designates
this area as urban residential, open space, and the transition area in between. The
map boundaries are generalized. The proposed project is in substantial compliance
with the land use designation of the master plan map and furthers the goals of the
master plan by providing for a diversity of housing needs in the community.
The application is reviewed in accordance with the conditional use review criteria in the
Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. -
a. Adequate Useable Space: The site has adequate space to meet the zoning
density and setback requirements. As shown on the site plan, the
development has inadequate space to meet parking requirements in the
zoning regulations (see discussion below on parking design). The number of
dwelling units may have to be reduced to meet these requirements.
b. Adequate Access: The proposed development has adequate access by
California Street, a paved city street with curb, gutter, and sidewalk on the
south side. See further discussion below on streets.
C. Environmental Constraints: The site includes a steep bank (a vertical rise of
approximately 40' at a 50-80% slope), subject to risks of slope instability and
erosion. The site also includes 100-year floodplain of the Stillwater River at
the bottom of the bank. The application proposes that buildings would be
setback 20 feet from the top of the bank to mitigate slope issues. A letter
received from the Flathead Conservation District (1/25/99) states as follows:
"The Planning Office should consider requiring a professional engineer to
analyze the stability of the slope as well as the loading by the construction
of the condos on the top of the bank. Quick calculations show that the
condos vary from 13 to 20 feet back from the top of the bank. This could
place a heavy load on the soils, possibly causing slumping of the banks.
With the increase in impervious surfaces (pavement, roofs), the problem
could be magnified. Placement of plowed snow could have a significant
negative impact. Our soil scientist noted this is the same parent material
as the soils along the Whitefish River. You will recall the same material
caused several homes to slump towards the river, just south of Highway
FA
40, approximately two years ago. An engineering review could ensure this
is addressed before a decision is made for approval/denial of the project.
In addition, the engineering report should reveal if there is a perched water
table along this bank. There is a high likelihood that this would occur in the
area. ... In addition, if this project is approved, we recommend that the
contractor and the condo association be required to retain all the vegetative
cover on the banks, to help stabilize the soils."
A subdivision was reviewed in 1998, Hillcrest Unit 8, on a similar bench above
the Whitefish River approximately 'h mile north of this site, and the
geotechnical engineer's assessment submitted with the preliminary plat
recommended a 35' building setback from top of the slope to ensure slope
stability. To ensure the safety of the proposed building sites and protect
do slope properties and water quality, staff recommends the following:
® Prior to building construction and revised preliminary plat approval, obtain a
geotechnical assessment prepared by a licensed professional engineer
finding that the site and proposed improvements would pose no significant
slope stability hazard nor other geological hazard to the development nor to
neighboring properties. Any design and construction measures
recommended in the assessment shall be noted on the revised preliminary
plat and implemented as requirements of building permit approval.
® The 20' building setback area from the top of the bank (i.e., the sloped
area exceeding 30%) shall be shown on the revised preliminary plat and
implemented as a requirement of building permit approval.
® The lands within 50' of mean high water of the Stillwater River slough
channel and extending to the top of the bank (sloped area exceeding 30%)
shall be retained in a natural state with no new structures, roadway,
excavation, fill, or significant removal of healthy vegetation, except for
bank stabilization measures. This area shall be shown and the restriction
shall be noted on the revised preliminary plat. —
a. Parking and site circulation: Zoning regulations require 25 parking spaces for
the proposed 10 dwellings. The site plan shows only 23 spaces, including 10
in garages, and at least 7 of the spaces do not comply with the parking design
standards in the zoning regulations. These spaces either overlap or extend
into the required 24' driving aisle. In addition, a 10' landscape strip must be
provided between the two parking spaces near the street and the street right-
of-way, per Section 27.35.030(6). The site plan will need to be revised, and the
number of dwelling units may have to be reduced, to meet these requirements.
b. Open Space: The site plan proposes dedication of 0.847 acres of land to the
City as park, which amply meets subdivision requirements for parkland
dedication. Recommendations are also discussed above to retain the steep
bank and slough below as natural area.
3
The proposed park has no public road access and is close to, but does not
abut, Lawrence Park. Parks Director Mike Baker commented the proposed
park is a wetland area and is not anticipated to be a developed recreation
area, so the need for access would be rare. He added that dedication of the
wetland area north of the property by McElroy & Wilkin is contemplated, which
would connect the proposed park here to Lawrence Park. To ensure
necessary access in the meantime, Baker agreed that an easement or note on
the revised preliminary plat should be required allowing the City of Kalispell
access through the development site to the proposed park. -
C. Fencincc(ScreeningVLandscaping: The application proposes that trees and
shrubs will be planted on the site as screening to ease the effect on neighbors.
Staff recommends the following:
® A landscape plan showing the proposed planting of trees and shrubs on
the development site shall be approved by the City Parks Director. The
plan shall include plantings to moderately screen the development site
from the neighboring properties to the south and west, as well as
revegetation of all disturbed area.
® Install street trees along the north side of California St. adjacent to the
site, in accordance with plans approved by the City Parks Director.
d. Signs: An entrance sign is proposed but sign plans have not yet been
submitted. Zoning regulations limit subdivision signs in the R-3 district to
maximum size of 20 square feet per face and maximum height of six feet.
a. Schools: This site is within School District #5. Gary Rose from the district
commented that students would attend Edgerton or Russell Schools, and that
bus service may be provided on a first come, first served basis. Staff
estimates that an additional five students would reside at the site.
b. Parks and Recreation: As discussed above, Lawrence Park is nearly adjacent
to the site.
C. Police: Police protection will be provided by the Kalispell Police Department.
No unusual impacts or needs are anticipated from the proposed residential
development.
d. Fire Protection: Fire protection will be provided by the Kalispell Fire
Department. No unusual impacts or needs are anticipated from the proposed
residential development: Fire Chief Ted Waggener recommended that, to
avoid confusion in providing emergency access, the proposed access roadway
shall not be named and the addresses to the units shall be on Califomia St.
e. Water and sewer. The project would hook up to municipal water and sewer
service. Assistant City Engineer Dick Amerman recommended that individual
sewer and water service lines be extended from California St. to each unit,
4
rather than sewer and water mains.
f. Solid Waste: Solid waste pick-up will be provided by the City. Public Works
Director Jim Hansz recommended that individual trash removal service be
provided to each unit, rather than a common dumpster site.
g. Streets: Traffic generation from the development is estimated at 50 average
daily trips, based on estimates for condominium housing in the Institute of
Transportation Engineers trip generation manual. The proposed development
has adequate access by California Street, a paved city street with curb, gutter,
and sidewalk on the south side. Zoning standards require that the private
driving aisle accessing the units have 24' paved width and meet curve radius
standards and that the condominium association be responsible for
maintenance of the street and other common property, including snow
removal. City Standards for Design and Construction require implementation
of plans for the private roadway addressing drainage, revegetation, and
erosion control. Subdivision regulations require installation of a sidewalk on
the development side of California St. adjacent to the site. Two other street
issues are apparent. First, staff recommends provision of adequate space for
snow storage in locations that are taken into consideration in the drainage
plan. Second, to mitigate neighborhood impacts of the mini -family density
and provide for standard street improvements, staff recommends installation of
street trees on California St. adjacent to the site, in accordance with plans
approved by the Kalispell Parks Director.
MENU - . , ...
Development impacts of the proposal under an R-3 density are anticipated to be
typical of an urban density neighborhood. The extension of R-3 zoning beyond the
building site area at the top of the slope to include the perimeter bank would allow for
clustering multifamily housing onto a smaller site, in comparison to surrounding
single-family housing density. The visual effects of that clustering are substantially
mitigated by two factors. First, the proposal is a relatively small infill project, an
additional 10 units on 1.8 acres. Second, several design characteristics improve the
project's compatibility with surrounding housing: a townhouse design with private
entrances, building size of four -plea or smaller, pitched roofs, and a proposal for
landscaping. Staff also recommends the installing street trees along the north side of
California Street as further screening. The environmental impacts (e.g., slope
stability, drainage, erosion) are discussed above.
Traffic generation from the development is estimated at 50 average daily -trips, a
moderate increase in an urban density neighborhood. Except during construction, no
significant unusual impacts are anticipated from noise, vibration, or dust. The zoning
regulations (27.26.030.6) require that outdoor lighting in the parking area be arranged
to reflect light away from neighboring residential properties and public right-of-way. is
proposed on the parking lot. No impact from smoke, fumes, gas, odors, or
inappropriate hours of operation are anticipated beyond the norm of an urban density
neighborhood.
5
A notice of public hearing was mailed to property owners within 150 feet of the site
approximately 15 days prior to the hearing. Comments have been received in
opposition from neighbors Steve Cheman, Estelle Will, and Ed White, with concerns
that the proposed density is incompatible with the quiet, single family neighborhood;
too much density is proposed on an environmentally sensitive site; and property
values may decline. Jon Hese!wood commented in favor of the development but
concerned about parking congestion and the incompatibility of two-story structures.
The surrounding land use character is single-family housing and open space, and the
proposed density is inconsistent with this established character. As noted above, the
extension of R-3 zoning beyond the building site area would allow for clustering
multifamily housing onto a smaller site, in comparison to surrounding single-family
housing density. On the other hand, small infill projects of multifamily housing have
become common in Kalispell, in response to changing housing demand. Nearly half
of the housing constructed in Kalispell in the mid- 1990's was multifamily housing.
The visual effects on compatibility are substantially mitigated by the relatively small
project size and several design characteristics. The environmental impacts are
substantially mitigated by building setbacks from the top of the slope and construction
standards recommended above. Comments have been received in opposition from
neighbors Steve Chernan, Estelle Will, and Ed White, with concerns that the
proposed density is incompatible with the quiet, single family neighborhood; too much
density is proposed on an environmentally sensitive site; and property values may
decline.
...
Annexation and development of the site to an R-3 density is orderly growth, which is
anticipated to conserve property values in the vicinity. Neighbors have expressed concern, however, however, about the compatibility of the specific multifamily development
proposed on the site, as discussed above on the effects on character.
Staff recommends that the planning board adopt the staff report KCU-99-1 as findings of
fact and recommend approval of the conditional use permit subject to the following
conditions:
1. The proposal will be developed in substantial conformance with the site plan and
application materials, except as modified by conditions herein. All conditions shall be met
prior to occupancy of the buildings.
2. Redesign the site plan to comply with the parking requirements of the Kalispell Zoning
Ordinance and the proposed 20' building setback from the top of the bank (i.e.,
measured from the edge of slopes exceeding 30%). For example, zoning regulations
P
require 25 parking spaces in accordance with parking design standards and a 10'
landscape strip between the two parking spaces near the street and the street right-of-
way. The 20' setback area from the top of the slope shall be shown on the revised site
plan. Reduction in the number of dwelling units may be required to meet this condition.
3. Prior to building construction, obtain a geotechnical assessment prepared by a licensed
professional engineer finding that the site and proposed improvements would pose no
significant slope stability hazard nor other geological hazard to the development nor to
neighboring properties. Any design and construction measures recommended in the
assessment shall be implemented as requirements of building permit approval.
. The lands within 50' of mean high water of the Stillwater River slough channel and
extending to the top of the bank (sloped area exceeding 30%) shall be retained in a
natural state with no new structures, roadway, excavation, fill, or significant removal of
healthy vegetation, except for bank stabilization measures. This area shall be shown
and the restriction shall be noted on the revised site plan.
5. The proposed park shall be dedicated to the City of Kalispell prior to building occupy.
Execute bn easement or place a note on the revised preliminary plat allowing the City
access through the development site to the proposed park.
6. Comply with the conditional use standards for cluster developments in the Kalispell
Zoning Ordinance. Submit covenants or unit ownership papers showing provision for
perpetual maintenance of all common facilities.
7. A landscape plan showing the proposed planting of trees and shrubs on the
development site shall be approved by the City Parks Director and implemented. The
plan shall include plantings to moderately screen the development site from the
neighboring properties to the south and west, a perimeter landscape strip at least 10' in
width, and of all disturbed area.
8. Install street trees along the north side of California St. adjacent to the site, in
accordance with plans approved by the City Parks Director.
9. The proposed sign shall comply with the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. The sign shall not
exceed a maximum size of 20 square feet per face and maximum height of six feet.
10. To avoid confusion in providing emergency access, the proposed access roadway shall
not be named and the addresses to the units shall be on California St.
11. Provide hydrants, access, and other improvements as necessary to comply with the
Uniform Fire Code as approved by the Kalispell Fire Chief.
12. The development shall comply with the Kalispell Design and Construction Standards.
Sewer, water, drainage, and other applicable facilities shall be approved by the City
Engineer. Extend individual sewer and water service lines from California St. to each
unit, rather than sewer and water mains. Provide individual trash removal service to each
unit, rather than a common dumpster site. Provide adequate space for snow storage in
6
13. The conditional use permit is valid for a period of 18 months from the date of
authorization.
H-A ... \KCU198\)<CAJ98-7
E.
Flathead Regional Development Office
723 Sth Ave. East Room 414
Kalispell, MT 59901
Phone: (406)758-5980 Fax: (406)758-5781
CITY OF KALISPELTri
PROPOSED USE:
JAN i
OWNERS) OF RECORD:
Name: 7-,S 0 zz-,(:� V-0
Mailing Address: 0. a
City/ State/Zip: j�f-2--5.0,6LL41-7 S-'q'cl0eiL Phone:
PERSON(S) AUTHORIZED TO REPRESENT THE OWNER(S) AND TO WHOM ALL
CORRESPONDENCE IS TO BE SENT:
Name: e,*"-L- Irk-Re'sk—
Mailing Address: -d 2 3 /,?,0.
City/State/Zip: Phone:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Refer to Property Records):
Street
Sec.
Town-
26
Range
Address. c-r�✓Z-11
No.
ship
No.,
Subdivision
Tract
Lot
Block
Name: C'Wo X—'
No(s).
No(s).
No.
1. Zoning District and Zoning Classification in which use is proposed:
2. Attach a plan of the affected lot which identifies the following items:
a. Surrounding land uses.
b. Dimensions and shape of lot. (le—r
C. Topographic features of lot.
d. Size(s) and location(s) of existing buildings
e. Size(s) and location(s) of proposed buildings. V-- 5-
f. Existing use(s) of structures and open areas.
9- Proposed use(s) of structures and open areas. S I �e- f
1
3. On a separate sheet of paper, discuss the following topics relative to the
proposed use:
a. Traffic flow and control.
b . Access to and circulation within the property.
c . Off-street parking and loading.
d. Refuse and service areas.
e. Utilities.
L Screening and buffering.
9- Signs, yards and other open spaces.
h. Height, bulk and location of structures.
i. Location of proposed open space uses.
j. Hours and manner of operation.
k. Noise, light, dust, odors, fLimes and vibration.
4. Attach supplemental information for proposed uses that have additional
requirements (consult Planner).
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury and the laws of the State of Montana that the
information submitted herein, on all other submitted forms, documents, plans or any
other information submitted as a part of this application, to be true, complete, and
accurate to the best of my knowledge. Should any information or representation
submitted in connection with this application be incorrect or untrue, I understand
that any approval based thereon may be rescinded, and other appropriate action
taken. The signing of this application signifies approval for the F.R.D.O. staff to be
present on the property for routine monitoring and inspection during the approval
and development pr c
c6licant Signature
Revised 10/30/97 Is
0
Date
a. California Street will provide adequate traffic flow, as it is a wide,
unobstructed street.
b. Access to thee property is provided by a 24' wide paved road with curb
& gutter on both sides.
c. There will be 25 parking pads on site for land owners and guest parking
. 2 refuse sites will be available with easy access for the City of Kalispell.
e. All utilities will be underground (power, cable, telephone, water, sewer)
The drainage will be retained along the site.
f. Trees and shrubs will be planted to ease the effect on the neighbors.
g. A decorative sign will be located in the center of the property. There will
be adequate open space and yards provided.
h. The structures will be within the 30-ft height allowed by the City of
Kalispell building department. The buildings will be set back 20' from
the embankment as per your request.
i. Open spaces will be provided behind each unit and in the center of the
driveway.
J. There will be no commercial allowed on the property.
k. None of these would be out of the ordinary residential standards.
l . There will be a Condo Association formed called Choke Cherry Ridge
Condo Association according to Montana Law before the sale of any
lots and every buyer must become a member.
2. The association will be responsible for any and all liability insurance,
Common area maintenance, and payment for waste material removal.
3. Any change to the agreement shall be done according to Montana
t J N 2 6 1999 r
January 26, 1999 _
To: Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission F R
From: Jon and Sylvia Heselwood - Owner of 483 5th Avenue East North
RE: Unicore Development Petition
We will be unable to attend your February 9th meeting, and are submitting these
thoughts on Unicore's project.
TT- - i - • i•i -• • •. - # - -. • •3• .•
2. We are concerned that there isn't sufficient off-street parking for 10 condominiums.
We see only • parking places on - submitted plan. We think one •
parking space for each condominium • • be more appropriate.
3. In the plan submitted, we •• not -ewhere the garbagecollectioni -i
,9-nd would oppose any sites adjacent to the street.
4. We have heard from several members of the community over the years that this site
was created by fill. Is this true? If so, we hope the site will be adequately tested and
the necessary foundation requirements carefully engineered, reviewed and inspected.
5. We hope the dwellings will be limited to a single story. Two or three level
condominiums in this ares would be significantly inconsistent with the current
neighborhood. Please limit the height of the proposed building to allow only single
story construction.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
TA-1717917,5—WKUN
30 Lower Valley Fbad
Kalispell. MT I
Pxne (1-M752-LG?20 Fax lLM)7S2-LG77
Email: <fk--d0dlglst1sivt>
P
Steve Kountz
Senior Planner
Flathead Regional Plaming Ofric--
723 51h Avenue,
Kalispell, MT59M I
RE- Unicore Developmerit Inc. arnexation, zone change, conditional use permit, and
Subdivision
Im I a ramMiANEW a - - I
0 The soils are highly stratified with a wet "toe" at the base of the bank.
The Plarning Office should consider requiring a professional engineer to
analyze the stability of the slope as well as the loading by the construction of
the condos on the top of the bank. Quick calculations show that the condos
vary from 13 feet to 20 feet back from the top of the bank. This could place a
heavy "load" an the soils, possibly causing slumping of the barks. With the
increase in imperious surfaces (pavement. roofs), the problem could be
magnified. Placemerit of plowed sriow could have a significant negative impact.
Our soil scientist rioted this is the same parent material as the soils along the
Whitefish River. You will recall the same material caused several homes to
slump towards the river, just south of Highway 140, approximately 2 years ago.
An engineering review could ensure this is addressed before a decision is
made for approval/denial of the project.
In addition, the engineering report should reveal if there is a perched water table
along this bank. There is a high likelihood that this would occur in the area.
9- 7
D. 0.
We regret we cannot do a more detailed soils Investigation to assist you but a
consulting firm should be able to provide you that Information.
In addition, projectapproved, uje recarrvnend
- contractor _ i
"� �■:�.. ■ ■ _ �. �' n. � ■ R..� - � � ■ � � � ,�.; � f¢'_^ _ - . � ' = �. jam: ■ _
Cathy t
Resou -Conservationist
Superintendent
756-5000
Business Office
756-5006
756-5015
Special Services
756-5017
Flathead High School
756-5675
jun 5T 0�
Lindennan School
756-5024
Russell School
756-5052
Peterson School
756-5067
Hedg6-5048
Elrod School
756-5043
Edgerton School
-756-5058
phone: 406-756-5015 233 FIRST AVENUE EAST - KALISPELL, MONTANA 59901 fax: 406-756-4510
January 25, 1999
Steve Kountz
Senior Planner
Flathead Regional Development Office
723 5th Avenue East -Room 414
Kalispell, Mt. 59901
Re: Proposed Unicore Development
Dear Mr. Kountz,
T r b
JAN ' 6 199
Students from this area would attend either Edgerton or Russell elementary school.
This area is less than three miles from Edgerton, Russell, Linderman, Kalispell Junior
High, and Flathead High School. Consequently, we are not required to provide busing.
We do have buses in the area and could provide transportation to some of the schools.
It would be provided on a first -come, first served basis, and there would be a fee for
transportation (see attached).
Sincerely,
(D
vrl
C(
Gary Rose
RIDER ELIGIBILITY
Free transportation will be provided for all eligible transportees
who reside on an approved bus route. Eligible transportees are
School District 5 students whose residences are three or more
miles from the school he or she attends.
Free transportation may also be provided for District students who
are transported from one school to another for school activities
and infant children of teen parents.
Eligible transportees who do not live on or near an approved bus
route may apply for individual transportation payments. Information
on this is available at the District Transportation Office, 233 First
Avenue East.
Temporary riders must secure advance permission from the
Transportation Office.
Tuition students, parochial students, and students who live within
three miles are ineligible transportees. Ineligible transportees are
allowed to ride under the following conditions:
1. Students must register with the Transportation Office and
pay required fees.
2. Ineligible transportees can be displaced by eligible
transportees at any time.
3. Seats for ineligible transportees are provided on a first
come, first serve basis..
Fees to be collected for ineligible transportees are as
follows:
Both ways One Way
First Child $10.00/mo. $5.00/mo.
Second Child $ 5.00/mo. $2.50/mo.
Additional Children $ 2.25/mo. $1.25/mo.
Fees must be paid in advance, and students are required to have a
ticket that must be shown to the bus driver upon request. Tickets
are free if you meet income eligibility guidelines for free meals.
Tickets are one-half price if you meet income eligibility guidelines
for reduced price meals.
page 2
144M#1)18A' 1 7 A 1.
ATUNDING:
Craig Kerzman, Building OfficialSWm .7 FRDO
ExaminerJim Hansz, Public Works Director
Darryl Syle, Plans
Orland Leland, Assistant Fire Chief
Baker,Mile Ir
'n,l• is d' Clerk
McGrath, !
L Waterford Development - a proposed 295 unit housing development to be built off of FoJ9
Mile Drive and accommodating only 55 and older residents. Tle scope of the project s
d'trdd independent] •unitsiassistedlivingunits to units. Tbc site would
occupy 22.91 acres consisting of one triplex, 12 duplexes, and a main building consisting
300,000 squarer» location on # of
Highway 93 with a building A #
Helena,50 feet would make this the highest spot in Kalispell. 'ne developer has similar units in
rf and Vancouver,Discussed were concernsabout wvate
pressure for hydrants, etc., drainage, parks, and road upgrade-,. Annexation to the city wou
be sought1dtherefore proposed private f. should be designated
Choke ChcM Development t. condo project i be built in #1
bordered on thenorth by f down to! ••Annexation with
zGnc designation of R-3, and a conditional use permit for clustering would be sought. i
Flathead Electric Cooperative, Inc.
2510 Highway 2 East
Kalispell, MT 59901-2397
406-752-4483 Fax 752-4283
January 25, 1999
Flathead Regional Development Office
723 5TH Avenue East - Room 414
Kalispell, Montana 59901
Re: Choke Cherry Ridge Development
Flathead Electric Cooperative's Engineering Department has reviewed the Choke
Cherry Ridge Development plans and FEC can provide power to the development
under the current policies and regulations.
Sincerely,
Gail Sherman
Engineering Coordinator
Locally Owned By Those We Serve
Name:
Address: q1(,
Telephone:
Topic of comments: —
Legal description of site:
Comments:
IMMArRIM
re C ed 1 yv� n n -V� I -S S( t-C ! ---Lt- may h�
WAS- M-'
Taken by: Date: 2
e..evAll--1
- ZAft_e:
ryl�
he Board went over the conditions and made amendments as
follows, based on the public input and the requests of the
Waterford Company and staff recommendations:
#2 The extension of all services and facilities be done in
accordance with plans approved by the Kalispell Public Works
Department.
#6 include "and the City of Kalispell"; "and source of traffic
generation and that appropriate share of cost and upgrade be
determined prior to construction"; and delete "Montana
Department of Transportation".
#8 Change to: That the proposed new roadway be private and
gated to use as an emergency access route only with sole access
from 4 Mile Drive, and upon completion be signed in accordance
with City standards.
#9 Include "and that a prorated cost be shared based on the
results of the traffic study and agreed upon by all parties
identified".
# 14 Change to: "The park area designated as the courtyard on the
site plan be developed which provides amenities such as tables,
walkways, landscaping and trees.
OTION Garberg moved and Hines seconded to adopt staff reports #KA-99-
1 and #KPUD-99-1 as findings of fact and recommend to the
Kalispell City Council that upon annexation the property be zoned
R-4 and RA-1 with a Planned Unit Development overlay, subject to
the conditions as amended. On a roll call vote: Don Mann, Jean
Johnson, Don Hines, Greg Stevens, Keith Brian Sipe, Don Garber
and Rob Heinecke voted Aye. Joe Brenneman voted No. The
motion passed on a 7-1 vote.
5 minute break at 10:38 and resumed 10:45.
UNICORE ANNEXATION Request by John & Brenda Vincent for annexation and initial
& ZONE CHANGE, zoning of 2.6 acres located on the north side of California Street
CONDITIONAL USE AND between 5th and 6th Ave. E.N.
PRELIMINARY PLAT
STAFF REPORT Tom Jentz gave a thorough presentation of staff reports #KA-99-2,
#KCU-99-1, and #KPP-99-1. The staff recommends that the
Kalispell City -County Planning board and Zoning Commission
adopt the staff report and recommend to the Kalispell City Council
to adopt P-1 zoning on the land proposed for dedication as a city
park and R-3, single family, with 7000 square foot minimum lot
size, zoning on the remainder of the site, as described in Exhibit
B. In addition, he recommended approval of the conditional use
permit and preliminary plat to allow 10 condominium units to be
constructed on the site. Jentz noted however, that parking was
deficient as 25 spaces were required, but only 18 met zoning
standards. He stated that to meet the staff conditions the site
Kalispell City County Planning Board
Minutes of meeting February 9, 1999
Page 8 of 13
plan will have to be re -drawn whit-__ could result in the loss of at
least one to two units.
ELIC HEARING The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the application.
PROPONENTS Max Battle, representing Unicore and the current property owners,
spoke in favor of the proposals. He reported that because of the
concern raised about the stability of the banks some test holes
have been dug and engineers will be completing borings and soil
analysis and they have no opposition to having experts determine
the setbacks but that they want to be allowed less than a 20 ft.
setback if the engineers sign off on less. They are willing to have
an agreement with the city for access to the park area but want it
noted that it is the one area where there is marginal instability in
the adjoining slopes. There will be approximately 60% less
pervious surface, (water perk area) therefore moisture will be
directed into a drainage system maintaining the integrity of the
subsurface soil. The loading on the site will be at or below the
current rate based on the removal of ground versus construction
of the buildings. The staff report mentions having separate water
and sewer lines off of California, and we want a trunk line that
goes in and feathers to the individual units. In conclusion we
believe this project makes the best use of a difficult site.
OPPONENTS
No one else spoke in favor of the proposals.
Ed White, owner of an adjacent lot, spoke in strong opposition to
this proposal, noting that this would have an adverse affect on
their newly designed home. Believes the area should stay as
single family homes, and believes this project would be out of
character for the area.
Cary Colburn, presented and read a petition, (attached), citing
that the project is inconsistent with the character of single family
homes in the area, and does not go with the integrity of the area.
Steve Cheman, agrees with the previous speakers, and believes
that from 11 years of experience in the area, the ground on the
one side of the proposed plan is not stable, and the proposal is not
in character with the area, believes it will devalue his property,
and would rather see two lots with very nice homes.
Don Anderson, whose mother lives in the area, he is voicing their
opposition to the proposals, it does not follow the character of the
area and is too dense and believes two homes would be worth
more than this proposal, and agrees with the previous proponents.
Matt Montgomery, agreed with the previous speakers, and believes
that this is on the fringe of compliance and it would be a major
Kalispell City County Planning Board
Minutes of meeting February 9, 1999
Page 9 of 13
.mpact on the environment and i.ne wildlife, and would be
problematic on the traffic especially in winter conditions, and
believes their quality of life would be drastically altered.
Georgia Staub spoke against the proposal primarily around the
issues of safety, and traffic flow, and would like to see the city
buy the land and put a park on that property as there isn't one in
the immediate area. The area is single family homes with a nice
mix of young and old, and she believes this would disrupt the
quality of the community. John Valentino, agrees with the
previous speakers. Asks that the board strongly consider the
views of the community.
Lori Fisher, agrees with previous speakers, believes the bank is
eroding, and is concerned about the ecological impact on
Lawrence Park, and addressed the issue of increased traffic.
Jerry Anderson, wants the area to remain a single family home
neighborhood, and agrees with the previous speakers.
Sue Ellen Anderson spoke in opposition wants the property to
remain with 1 or 2 single family homes. And spoke of concerns
about traffic and child safety.
Clara Ellen Anderson, spoke in opposition, she has lived in the
area since 1946 and wants the area to remain single family in
nature. This is not an affluent community but it is a strong and
secure neighborhood. Spoke of extreme concern over parking
especially in bad winter conditions, and extreme concerns over soil
stability. This is the only quarter of Kalispell with no park, would
like to see the city put a city park on this property. Wants to see a
neutral engineering firm do the testing on the property. Want the
board to take the public comment into consideration, and deny
the petitions.
Richard Cole, is opposed to the project and does not believe that
this is a transitional area since the property behind it is open
area, and will continue to be. Agrees with the previous speakers.
Believes this would be the worst use of a desirable site
Dave Ebert, agreed with the previous opposition.
Lance Stodd, spoke of concerns about it not fitting with the area
and has extreme concern over building on slopes of this type and
on unstable soil. He can feel instability in the ground from traffic
in the surrounding area. Extreme opposition to the petitions, and
would like to see a city park there.
John McCarter, spoke in opposition to the area and was in
Kalispell City County Planning Board
Minutes of meeting February 9, 1999
Page 10 of 13
:,greement with the previous spec ,rs. He had concerns over
traffic, wants to see the area remain for single family and have a
park there for his family.
Larry Farrow, spoke in opposition to the development, and in favor
with the previous speakers, the nature and character of the area
make this development incompatible.
Glenda Simmons, though she doesn't live in the area, believes that
there will be problems with the developer based on her experience
with him through her ownership in a condominium built
development by him in another part of Kalispell.
Marla Culver, concerns over the historical value of the area. She
agreed with the previous speakers.
Don Clapper, on behalf of his mother in law, spoke in opposition
to the proposed petitions. He had concerns over the banks and
children's safety in the area. Agrees with the previous speakers.
Madeline Sardinas, spoke against the proposals, agreeing with the
previous speakers, and voiced concerns over fire safety and
children's safety.
Tammy Valentino, agreed with the previous speakers, wants the
historical values in the area to be considered. Also wants to speak
for some of the older neighbors in the area, some who could not
be there, that do not want to see the petitions go forward. Want
the board to seriously consider the child safety issues.
No one else spoke against the proposals.
BOARD DISCUSSION Brenneman excused himself due to the proximity of this project to
his family.
The Board discussed the report at length. Garberg spoke against
the project citing his concerns for the soils and the stability of the
site and stating that the design was not compatible with the single
family nature of the neighborhood.
There was general board discussion about the fact that the site
plan did not show adequate parking and the parking as
designated did not work.
Johnson asked if there was any test data available to the board
and was told that there is no test data available at that time.
In response to a question from the audience as to whether or not
the project engineer, Jakola, was an owner, Mr. Battle noted that
Kalispell City County Planning Board
Minutes of meeting February 9, 1999
Page I I of 13
-,Ir. Jakola has no interest in the project, he is totally independent.
Parking and snow removal will have to be dealt with on the final
plat and by the eventual owners. This is a condominium project,
all grounds will be maintained by a condominium association. He
concluded by stating they could live with the conditions proposed
by staff.
Jentz was asked how much flat land was available on the site and
how many traditional single family lots that could hold. Jentz said
approximately .6 acre of th 2.9 acre site was flat. This site could
accommodate 4 traditional 7,000 sq. ft. R-3 single family lots,
however, he cautioned that an applicant could propose a single
family lot configuration that allowed portions of the lot to extend
out over the bluffs.
Several Board members felt that the site should be inside the city
and it should be zoned R-3. Jentz re -iterated the applicants
request that if the board was not prepared to approve the entire
package, they did not want to receive a partial approval, for
example annexation and zoning only. Jentz stated that under
Montana Annexation statutes, the City could not forcibly annex
the property unless the owner consented, and in this case the
owner is not consenting unless the condo project approval is
included.
MOTIONS Stevens moved and Heinecke seconded to adopt staff report #KCU-
99-1 as findings of fact and recommend approval of the
conditional use permit subject to the conditions. Roll call vote:
Greg Stevens and Rob Heinecke voted Aye. Don Hines, Don
Mann, Keith Brian Sipe, Jean Johnson and Don Garberg voted No.
The motion failed on a vote of 2 in favor, 5 against and 1 excused.
Jentz stressed the importance of board actions with findings and
the need to express them so there is a basis for the negative
recommendation.
Garberg moved that the board deny the applications #KA-99-2
Annexation and Zoning, #KCU-99-1 Conditional Use Permit and
#KPP-99-1 Preliminary Plat Approval based on public comments,
safety, incompatibility to the single family neighborhood, and
insufficient design to meet preliminary plat criteria. Don Mann
seconded. On a roll call vote: Don Mann, Don Garberg, Jean
Johnson, and Don Hines voted Aye. Rob Heinecke, Keith Brian
Sipe, and Greg Stevens voted No. The motion passed to deny the
applications on a vote of 4 in favor, 3 against and 1 excused.
Brenneman returned to the board.
NEW BUSINESS Jentz reported that the previous nomination for member -at -large
Kalispell City County Planning Board
Minutes of meeting February 9, 1999
Page 12 of 13