* AgendaCITY OF KALISPELL
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA
AUGUST 25, 2003 — 7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER
DISCUSSION ITEMS
1. Subdivision Review Process
2. Sunnyside Subdivision
3. US 93 Sidewalk Discussion
4. Sign Ordinance
5. City Manager/Council Communication
ADJOURNMENT
Reasonable accommodations will be made to enable individuals with disabilities to attend this
meeting. Please notify Theresa White, City Clerk at 758-7756.
July 23, 2003
To: Council members and city manager
From: Bob Hafferman
Subject: CONTINUITY FOR DECISION MAKING
A number of issues have come before this council in the last year and a half that the information
furnished before the council meetings has often times been inadequate and arbitrary. In my opinion
this is unfortunate and generally unnecessary. Already there are ADOPTED AND ENACTED
adequate laws, rules, regulations, ordinances, standards, zoning and policies to guide the council in
most of its decision making.
To illustrate, I will use the following examples of RECENT situations:
1. Buffer zones We have had three situations of which the one on July 7 prompted me to
request a workshop item to discuss, what I consider, an out of control process. (a) On Empire Estates
the Tri-cities planning office had recommended a 20' buffer with a bike path (not countable toward
parkland), all paid for by the developer and maintained by the homeowners and on a roadway with
an already existing wide right-of-way. (b) On March 17 this council approved a Leisure Heights
Subdivision abutting Willow Glen Drive and required a 20' buffer with no bike path but on an
inadequate width, minor arterial road (Growth Policy) which needs to have 80' MINIMUM right-of-
way (Larry Brazda, MDOT). (c) On October 7, 2002, this council approved Sunnyside Subdivision
with NO buffer and NO bike path or walkway along Sunnyside Drive which is already too narrow
due to the fact this road has become a de facto by-pass between Airport Road through South
Meadows and Denver Avenue to Meridian Road.
2. Parking on the street. On July 7 this council approved a CUP for a triplex adjacent to 5`'
Avenue East which allowed 3 cars to park on 5' Avenue. Some of the council wanted all parking to
be on -site including the lla car per unit allowed for on -street parking in an RA-1 zone. Narda stated
that if we don't want on -street parking we should change the zoning ordinance. There is nothing
wrong with the zone ordinance as it exists but our subdivision regulations DO NOT ALLOW parking
on a narrow street (see copy of Standard's drawing SD-2). A condition of approval for this project
should have required the developer to mitigate the impacts of street parking by widening 5'' Avenue
sufficient for 3 cars to park safely. When asked, Narda stated she didn't know how wide the street
was. SHE SHOULD HAVE AND SHE SHOULD HAVE BEEN FAMILIAR WITH SD-2.
3. Storm water. On July 7, this council approved a rezone from RA-1 to B-2 to allow for
mini -storage units between Yd and 5"' Avenues East. Included with the packet was a sketch pertaining
to a proposed CUP for the mini -storage facilities and it immediately drew my attention to the amount
of overcovering effecting storm water runoff. This CRITICAL situation was not adequately
addressed in the staff report or conditions, BUT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN.
4. Maps. On July 21 (after my request for a workshop item) this council approved a
preliminary plat when we didn't even have a reduced copy of the preliminary plat. The area of the
subdivision, stated in the staff report, had three conflicting sizes. In addition, when questioned about
the number of units, Narda stated 4. How did she know? If the 18,000+ sf area is correct, then at
least 6 units would be allowable. But if we are allowing 4 lots of duplexes then 8 units would be
possible and that would violate our ordinances.
These are but a few examples. I have a number of others, but the point of the request for a workshop
was to TRY to get a start on improving procedures. From the reports submitted by Tri-cities planning
I'm beginning to wonder of all affected departments are having adequate input in project review
before the documents are submitted for council action.
It is my opinion that all Conditions placed on CUPs and preliminary plats should be referenced with
the rule, regulation, etc. to which it pertains. Where is the requirement for buffer zones and bike paths
on a subdivision (not planting buffers)? There is, however, very definite requirements in the general
Extension of Services Plan requiring the developer to mitigate roadway impacts.
Regulations require a traffic analysis on any development generating 300 or more vehicles/day. But
the council is not being informed of what these impacts are and how they are being mitigated, which
if the council is so inclined, could lead to major problems at final plat approval time. Mitigation of
traffic impact should be part of the approval of the PRELIMINARY plat, then it can be helpful to the
council and the developer.
When situations occur wherein special conditions exist that a regulation is not in the best interest of
both the developer AND the citizens, the council, in my opinion, should vote to override the specific
regulation with a stated reason for the override. The minutes of the meeting can serve as the
documenting source and if similar situations arise again the minutes can be used as a reference.
Most of the people in the Flathead who work on developments have a good grasp of the City's
existing rules and regulations. There is a LOT of concern when Tri-cities planning imposes conditions
or requirements that are not backed up with regulations. I have heard the statement made by planners
that the regulations "are minimum requirements". They ARE the requirements and it should not be
the prerogative of a Tri-cities reviewer to impose their own ideas. Conditions that are not referenced
to regulations should be justified and they should be SPECIFICALLY acted on by the council.
Simply following existing rules and regulation should lead to routine and rapid action on requests
made for council approval. I hope with this memo and subsequent workshop we can start working
toward continuity.
5' S0EWALK
VAR|EQ_
DD' D/vV MIN.
5' SIDEWALK
VARIES
.
4 TOP OIL ����o�o���o������"o"o"o°o"o"o"o"o"n"o"o"o"u"o"o"o�����(
4^ ASPH*AT/ 957. COMPACTION PER ASTM D—l555`9
3' CRUSHED GR4VEL'97% CCMPACT|ON PER A4SHTO T-99
/
12/' SELECT SUB —BASE / 95% COMPACTION PER AASHTO T-99
4~ TOPSOIL
l. Thicknesses of oopho|t. 3/4^ crushed gravel and sub —hose shall be as
shown unless on alternate design is approved, The City may accept on
alternate street design from o Professional Engineer if the traffic loads
and soil analysis justify different requirements. The final street design
must be approved by the City Engineer.
2, The width of pavement will depend on local conditions such as width of
existing streets in the area, anticipated traffic vo|urne, parking requirernenty,
future extensions, etc
J. The width of the R/W may have to be increased due to rood s}opey, oti|ities,
traffic volume or other requirements.
4. All tupsoi|ed areas to be sodded by Developer.
5. No parking will be allowed on 24' wide streets,
6. The rnoxirnurn grade shall be 7% for distances not to exceed 150 feet
per 300 feet of roadway,
CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS LOCAL STREET SID-2
Tri-City Planning Office
17 Second Street East Suite 211
Kalispell Montana 59901
Phone: (406) 751-1850
Fax: (406) 751-1858
tricity centurytel.net
www.tricityplanning-mt.com
TO: CHRIS KUKULSKI, CITY MANAGER
FROM: TOM JENTZ, PLANNING DIRECTOR
DATE: JULY 31, 2003
RE: RESPONSE TO JULY 23, 2003 COUNCIL MEMO — BOB
HAFFERMAN
In response to the letter Councilman Bob Hafferman has provided to you and the rest
of the Council, Mr. Hafferman raises several concerns relative to the City's
development review process and in particular the appearance of arbitrariness and lack
of predictability in the process. Mr. Hafferman's memo cites four specific examples in
recent months which exemplify, in the author's words, inadequate and arbitrary
information being submitted to the Council. These examples however were only
highlighted to show a development process that is "out of control". Below, I will
provide information to you that may help you better understand the review process.
First, it is important to outline the City's development review process. Following that
will be a discussion of the four cases cited by Mr. Hafferman and then this report will
conclude with some general statements.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS: When a project (subdivision, conditional use
permit application, etc.) is submitted to the Tri-City Planning Office, staff schedules
the project for review on the site plan review committee agenda. The site plan review
committee is provided for in the Kalispell City Zoning Ordinance section 27.22.040.
The committee consists of staff from public works, police, fire, zoning, building,
community development, parks and a representative from our planning office. In
addition, MDT is also invited when projects abut one of their streets or highways. The
application and supporting materials are circulated to each member of the committee
approximately a week before the meeting. The project is presented at the weekly
meeting typically twice, the first week for general presentation and review and then the
next week to collect final comments and review staff conditions. The applicant is also
invited. It is important to note that this is a team meeting, a team analysis and a
team -supported set of recommendations. No one agency or office dominates the
process. The goal of the site review committee is to ensure that all departments have
the opportunity to review and comment on projects before they are sent forward to the
Planning Board and City Council. Comments, issues and concerns are incorporated
into the staff report and ultimately possible conditions of approval.
Providing Community Planning Assistance To:
• City of Columbia Falls • City of Kalispell • City of Whitefish •
Chris Kukulski
Re: Response to Hafferman letter
July 31, 2003
Page 2 of 7
BUFFER ZONE ISSUES: Mr. Hafferman raises four separate issues as examples of an
"out of control" process. I will address each of these issues to give you a clear
understanding of the points being made. Under 1. BUFFER ZONES the statement is
made that 3 separate projects (Sunnyside Subdivision, Empire Estates and Leisure
Heights) were handled differently. Each project was approved with a different set of
conditions concerning buffer zones, landscape areas and bike paths. In response to
Mr. Hafferman's concerns, the staff and Planning Board recommendations were
different for each project because each project was different; the abutting streets
carried different classifications, different volumes of traffic and different future
scenarios. However, the objective and results of our recommendations were the same.
Sunnyside Subdivision: Chronologically, on October 7, 2002 the Council did approve
Sunnyside Subdivision. The entire Sunnyside Subdivision abutted Sunnyside Drive
for a distance of only 320 feet. Sunnyside Drive and 5th Avenue West are designated
as a collector street in the City Growth Policy. Collector streets are required to have a
minimum of a 60-foot R/W. Sunnyside Drive currently has a 60-foot R/W abutting
the subdivision. When looking at the neighborhood pattern of development, there is
little or no chance of widening this R/W up and down the road in the future to
anything beyond 60 feet as other developments already abut the majority of Sunnyside
Drive and 5th Avenue West. Thus, no condition for extra R/W was imposed. The
existing R/W was considered adequate. Likewise, the potential for pedestrian access
along Sunnyside Drive going anywhere in the foreseeable future was slim. There are
no other facilities on Sunnyside Drive; there are no plans at this time to develop a trial
system in the next 5 years. Therefore, no pedestrian facilities on Sunnyside Drive
were recommended. Finally, the traffic study which the Planning Board and City
Council did require to ensure that traffic impacts were properly addressed on
Sunnyside Drive showed that Sunnyside Drive currently only carries 700 trips per day
and did not warrant a substantial buffer or substantial upgrades. It is well below the
traffic volumes that would dictate a traffic hazard, as is the trigger for landscape
buffers along major roads according to City Subdivision Regulations Section 3.06. We
have no plan to re -construct Sunnyside Drive and no indication that given current and
future traffic volumes that the 60-foot R/W is not adequate. Based on these three
factual criteria, staff did not recommend additional conditions. Please note that the
Council does have the authority at any time in the future to order sidewalks in along
any property in the City if that is your wish.
Leisure Heights: On March 17, 2003 the Council approved the preliminary plat for
Leisure Heights, a 67-lot subdivision that abuts Willow Glen, a designated arterial, for
a distance of 1,325 feet. This particular subdivision abutted an arterial not just as a
collector as was the case of Sunnyside above, it had four times as much frontage along
the arterial and it was located along a street that is targeted for both future upgrades
and for a pedestrian path. Mr. Hafferman accurately states that in this situation we
asked for a 20-foot landscape buffer. He states we did not ask for a bike path and
that we ignored the need for additional R/W in light of the fact that Willow Glen is
deficient. Below please find clarification of the issues Mr. Hafferman raise:
a. A 20-foot landscape strip was recommended along Willow Glen, a designated
arterial, based on Section 3.06 of the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations which
states "a planting screen easement of a minimum width of 10-feet across which
there shall be no R/W access shall be provided along the line of lots abutting a
Chris Kukulski
Re: Response to Hafferman letter
July 31, 2003
Page 3 of 7
traffic artery, other disadvantageous situations, or non -compatible use as
deemed necessary by the City Site Review Committee."
b. Contrary to the memo, Condition 5 of the preliminary plat states that the funds
the developer would normally use to develop the landscape strip could be used,
at the City's discretion to either develop a landscape buffer or more preferably
to develop a bike and pedestrian trail along Willow Glen. This put the City
Council in the position to weigh the need for a pedestrian trail over landscaping
but did not put an additional burden on the developer. Please bear in mind
that it was just the previous month that the City, County and MDT officials
came together and developed a logical and fundable trail system for Willow Glen
as a result of a series of neighborhood and community meetings along Willow
Glen. Thus the bike trail for this subdivision was presented within the scope of
a larger bike plan for Willow Glen being developed in conjunction with Flathead
County from Four Corners to Woodland Drive. Pedestrian access has become a
significant component of the City review process as the City continues to grow
and urbanize, particularly along the Willow Glen Corridor.
C. Finally, Willow Glen has a substandard width for an arterial. Our subdivision
regulations state in Section 3.09 that an arterial should have a minimum of an
80-foot R/W. Willow Glen has a 60-foot R/W. Staff asked in Condition #6 that
a 10-foot wide R/W reservation be designated along Willow Glen within the 20-
foot landscape buffer that could be acquired in the future with the widening of
Willow Glen. The initial 10 feet was chosen as an equitable share for this
developer to set aside with the concept that the property on the other side of
Willow Glen would also dedicate 10 feet some time in the future. This
reservation is based on the advice of the MDT. As a state secondary road, our
consistent direction from. MDT is to avoid development within the future R/W
along Willow Glen. However, MDT will not tell us exactly how much R/W will
be needed as the future roadway upgrade has not been designed.
Consequently, staff secured a minimum 10-foot road reservation and with the
total 20-foot landscape buffer, adequate R/W should be available to maintain a
landscape buffer, pedestrian easement and upgraded road in the future without
having to condemn structures. This was a win -win situation for all involved.
None of the buffer zone or trail system was countable toward parkland
requirements.
In brief, in each of the scenarios, all of Mr. Hafferman's concerns have been met by the
conditions presented by the staff and the Planning Board within the confines of City
regulations.
Empire Estates: The City Council granted preliminary plat approval of this
subdivision on July 7, 2003. This subdivision contained 347 housing units (5 times
as many as Leisure Heights). This subdivision abutted an arterial (Three Mile Drive)
for 1/4 mile and it abutted Stillwater (not designated as a collector but a road which
very shortly will carry collector level traffic) for 1/2 mile. The scale and impact of this
project is significantly different than the previous two projects. Again, Section 3.06(J)
of the Subdivision Regulations calls for a planting and screening easement along the
line of lots abutting a traffic artery, disadvantaged situation or other non -compatible
situation. In the very near future based on approved projects and discussions we have
Chris Kukulski
Re: Response to Hafferman letter
July 31, 2003
Page 4 of 7
had in the office, Stillwater Road will begin to take on the character of Whitefish Stage.
It was the staffs position to be proactive as development occurred and recommend
both the landscape easement and bike trail as part of this project. Note that the
landscape buffer does provide the clear area should in the future Stillwater Road
needs to be expanded. It provides the pedestrian facilities needed to make the
development and the neighborhood work as a projected 700 - 1,000 people move into
this neighborhood. Section 3.07 D states that R/W or in this case easement, not less
than 10-feet in width for pedestrian walks, shall be required where deemed
appropriate essential to provide access to common facilities such as parks,
playgrounds, streams and lakes or when necessary to break up excessively long
blocks. Block development along Stillwater and along Three Mile is long because of
limited access onto these roads. In addition, School District 5 has an option for a
grade school and high school one mile north of this site on Stillwater.
Summary: Staff has consistently required landscape buffer strips wherever projects
abut major traffic lanes as provided for in City subdivision regulations. These buffer
strips in addition to buffering a neighborhood from adjacent traffic impacts, serve as a
reservation for future road widening and a location for current or future pedestrian
facilities. Council will remember that in addition to the three projects mentioned
above by Mr. Hafferman, in just the past several months landscape boulevards and
pedestrian trails have also been required for Blue Herron Estates and Raven Rock,
both adjacent to Empire Estates along Three Mile Drive and Stillwater Road.
Furthermore, this Council has placed a high priority on pedestrian facilities.
Please remember that the City code requires sidewalks along the locations that are
recommended for bike paths and that a bike path merely serves as a slightly wider
sidewalk that is already required to be placed there, not necessarily a completely new
facility. In the case of Sunnyside Subdivision, no sidewalk or bike trail was required
because of the short distance the project abutted Sunnyside Drive and because no
other facilities existed or were planned in the foreseeable future.
Finally, parkland has not been credited for these areas where the boulevard and
pedestrian path have been required for two reasons. First, in all future probability,
some of this area will disappear for road R/ W. Secondly, pedestrian facilities are not
park items, they are required and necessary improvements in the City as are streets,
or curb and gutter.
PARKING ON THE STREET: The Kalispell zoning ordinance requires 2.5 parking
spaces per residential unit. The ordinance further allows .5 spaces/unit of these
standards to be on -street if the frontage allows it. In the referenced triplex apartment
complex on Fifth Avenue East, on -street parking was recommended for those spaces.
The street is 27.5 feet wide with a 10-foot shoulder where parking is currently
permitted. This project went before the site plan review committee as do all projects.
It was the consensus of all the committee that on -street parking in this location would
not be a problem. This is the proposal that was forwarded to the Planning Board and
ultimately the City Council for action.
STORMWATER ISSUE: Mr. Hafferman raises concerns with the information
submitted as part of the conditional use permit for William Rice ((KCU-03-2) granted
on July 7,2003 that it failed to provide adequate information for storm water drainage.
Chris Kukulski
Re: Response to Hafferman letter
July 31, 2003
Page 5 of 7
He states the site plan showed a critically over -covered site. In response to Mr.
Hafferman's concern, staff was aware of the overcrowding of the site and the
importance of drainage in the area. This concern was also shared with the applicant.
This statement is quoted from the staff findings, Planning Board and City Council
findings:
"However, all of the storm water associated with this site will be required to
have a drainage plan that incorporates the on -site retention of storm water."
To address this concern raised in the staff report, the following condition was added to
the list of conditions by staff and ultimately approved by Planning Board and City
Council:
3. The proposal shall comply with the Kalispell Design and Construction
Standards for water, water, storm drainage, and other applicable facilities
which shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
Staff and City codes do not require the preparation of a storm water drainage plan or
for that matter most expensive project engineering studies prior to approval of a
conditional use permit. The applicant knows these studies will be required as a
condition of approval. The applicants know that these studies may end up dictating
that the size or scale of the project may have to be reduced or altered. To front load
the cost of these studies, especially on small projects without any assurance that their
project will be approved, has always been sharply criticized by the development
community and not a policy supported by Councils.
MAPS: Mr. Hafferman raises the issue that inadequate maps were presented for
approval of a preliminary plat on July 21,2003 and that there was no way to ascertain
if 4 or 6 or 8 lots were being proposed based on staff information. To clarify these
concerns, first it it's important to point out that this was not a preliminary plat but a
final plat. Preliminary plat was actually waived on May 16, 2003 by the Tri-City
Planning Office based on the City subdivision regulations, Section 2.06 which provides
for an expedited review process for those simple situations where a subdivision
contains 5 or fewer lots and which comply with all City codes and have minimal
impact. Note that for minor subdivisions there is no neighborhood notification and no
public hearing. If the subdivision indeed had more than five lots, there would be no
waiver, there would have been a public hearing and the project would have been
handled through a different process.
The question was raised that Mr. Hafferman did not know how many lots were being
created and that there was no way for Narda to know either. The number of lots is
stated no less than 3 times in the material submitted by staff:
❖ Staff memo from Narda Wilson and Chris Kukulski dated July 21, 2003 begins,
"This is a subdivision that creates 4 sublots intended for duplex townhouse
development for a total of 4 new dwellings.
Chris Kukulski
Re: Response to Hafferman letter
July 31, 2003
Page 6 of 7
❖ Staff Report #KWP-03-4 for Chappelle Subdivision dated July 15, 2003 states in
the heading, "A report to the Kalispell City Council presenting finings of fact for a
4-lot residential townhouse subdivision. This subdivision will create 4 sublots
intended for two duplex townhouses for a total of 4 dwelling units. "
Continuing in the stated staff report under B. Location, "The applicants propose to
develop two duplex townhouse lots. The parent lot would contain 23,600 square
feet while each duplex would sit on two sublots measuring 6,160 and 5,520 square
feet respectfully.
In addition, it was clear to staff what we were reviewing. In the original letter
requesting a wavier submitted by Larsen Engineering dated April 23, 2003 Ardis
Larsen stated she was requesting a waiver for a project that would create 4 townhouse
lots.
In our letter of May 16, 2003 granting waiver of preliminary plat approval and
directing Larsen Engineering to go directly to final plat, it was stated, "The subdivision
will create two parent tracts that are intended for duplex townhouse development
thereby creating a total of 4 sublots. "
In addition, in discussion with the Zoning Administrator, preliminary building plans
had already been circulated to the building department showing the proposed
structures.
To re -cap:
❖ Every project does go through site review; the reports are written by the Tri-City
Planning Office but are a team effort on the part of all city departments.
❖ Where regulations are not in the best interest of the City or the developer there are
provisions to change them clearly spelled out in City ordinances. Under unique
zoning situations, the variance process is spelled out with the authority specifically
given to the City Board of Adjustment. Under subdivision review, a variance
process is also set out. The City Council has the authority to grant variances to
the subdivision regulations. The Council is first required to adopt findings
justifying the variance. The process is clearly laid out in the subdivision
regulations, it is part of each pre -application meeting we have with a potential
developer and it is clearly labeled in the subdivision application that each applicant
fills out.
❖ Staff is following the adopted rules and regulations as adopted by the City. Staff
takes their work seriously and do not invent or fabricate conditions without
regulatory support or a finding of substantial need.
If in the future any member of the Council has questions, concerns or issues with a
particular development or process, it would be most beneficial if they immediately
contacted the City Manager who could set up a meeting with the pertinent staff so that
Chris Kukulski
Re: Response to Hafferman letter
July 31, 2003
Page 7 of 7
they could be addressed immediately. It is particularly important that questions be
answered before the Council meeting so that the Council members are fully prepared
to act on the issues before them at the proper time. This will help all of us to better
serve the public.
If you have additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact this
office.
TRJ / sm