Planning Board Minutes - February 14, 1995KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND ZONIN(
MINUTES OF MEETING
FEBRUARY 14, 1995
CALL TO ORDER The regularly scheduled meeting of the Kalispell City -County
AND ROLL CALL Planning Board and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:04
p.m. by President Therese Hash. Board members present were
Mike DeGrosky, Walter Bahr, Robert Lopp, Pam Kennedy, Mike
Fraser, Robert Sanders, Fred Hodgeboom, Milt Carlson, and
Therese Hash. John Parsons, Senior Planner represented the
Flathead Regional Development Office. The City of Kalispell was
represented by Brian Wood, Zoning Administrator. There were
approximately 25 people in the audience.
APPROVAL OF The minutes of the January 10, 1995 meeting were approved as
MINUTES submitted on a motion by Kennedy, second by Bahr. All members
voted aye.
ANNEXATION & The first public hearing was on a request by Dennis Carver for
ZONE CHANGE / annexation to the City of Kalispell with an initial zoning
R-1 TO R-4 classification of R-4, Two Family Residential. The parcel contains
BELMAR approximately 7 acres located north of South Meadows Subdivision
ADDITION and is zoned County R-1. The site will access Bluestone Drive
through Lot 57 of South Meadows. The site will be known as
Belmar Addition, and is described as Assessors Tract 14CA and
part of Tract 1K, in the NE4 of Section 19, T28N, R21W, P.M.M.,
Flathead County.
Staff Report Parsons presented an overview of report #KA-95-1. The request
for an R-4 zoning classification upon annexation into the City of
Kalispell was evaluated in accordance with the statutory criteria
relative to the request, with a favorable recommendation.
Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the R-4 zone
classification upon annexation. No one spoke either in favor or in
opposition. The public hearing was closed, and it was opened to
Board discussion.
Discussion The difference in the density between County R-1, which is 1 unit
per acre, and City R-4, which is a single family/duplex zone ,
requiring 6000 square foot lots was explained. Lopp expressed
concern with the urban density in the riparian protection zone of
Ashley Creek. He did recognize, however, that the property was
adjacent to other City R-4 zoning.
Motion DeGrosky moved to approve FRDO report #KA-95-1 as findings of
fact and forward it with a positive recommendation for an R-4
zone designation upon annexation into the City of Kalispell.
Fraser seconded. On a roll call vote the motion passed with a
vote of 8 in favor, 1 abstain.
BELMAR The next public hearing was on a request by Dennis Carver for
ADDITION / preliminary plat approval to subdivide 7 acres of proposed R-4
PRELIMINARY zoned land into 27 single family/duplex lots, to be known as Belmar
i
PLAT Addition. The site will be developed with City services and have
citl-de-sac/loop access through Lot 57 of South Meadows
Subdivision from Bluestone Drive. The site is further described
as Assessors Tract 14CA and part of Tract 1K in the NE4 of
Section 19, T28N, R21W, P.M.M., Flathead County.
Staff Report Parsons presented report KPP-95-1. Based on evaluation of the
submitted preliminary plat, staff recommended approval of the
subdivision, with 14 conditions.
Public Hearing The meeting was opened to those in favor of the proposed
subdivision.
In Favor Dennis Carver, the developer of the subdivision, made a few
comments about the 100 year floodplain that exists on the site.
Most of the lots are approximately 150 feet from the creek, except
Lot 6 which actually abuts Ashley Creek. The bank drops off at
that site, and is about 26 feet above the floodplain. He said that
there have been many changes since the start of this project. He
intended to have this as an extension of South Meadows
Subdivision, and before he made an offer to purchase the
property, he had conferred with the planners and the city
manager, to see if the city could support an extension of the
rural streets. That was fine with the city manta -+sr. Aftor
he bought the property, he was told by Parsons that much more
would be required. He planned to put in 28 feet paver.] roa tl:;
with curb and gutters, but this 36 feet with 4 inches of paving
instead of 3 inches of paving for residential areas, sidewalks,
street lights, city trees, so that soon the price goes up about
$3000-4000 per lot. 'He said he really doesn't have too much of a
problem with that, but he thinks that as a Planning Board, you
need to ask yourselves if that is what you really want. He is
disappointed that he can't sell these lots for the same price as he
sold South Meadows lots for. He went on to address the issue of
the floodplain. You don't have to go back very far to put houses,
only about 40-50 feet. The excavation from the roadway will be
adequate fill for that. He doesn't think he needs a map
amendment for that. According to the Kalispell Ordinance, to
obtain a building permit, you need to floodproof the structure
which is a fairly simple matter for three lots. He extended those
lots a little, but it was varied, because he really doesn't have any
use for the rest of the property. The total area is 18 1/2 acres,
and only 7 acres are useable. The rest of it is probably useable
for pastureland.
Opposition There were no further speakers either in favor or in opposition
to the proposed subdivision. The public hearing was closed.
President Hash noted for the record that Board members received
letters from two adjacent property owners who were in opposition
to the proposed subdivision, as follows:
Dolores Aadsen, 1975 Bluestone Drive, wrote that she was opposed
to the development of Belmar Addition. She purchased Lot #62 on
Bluestone Drive because there was a buffer zone with ;-ome
wildlife and nice view of the mountains. With the development of
2
Belmar Addition, the quality of life will be destroyed, besides the
devaluation of her property. She had concern about the height
of the proposed structures, as the existing homes are one -level
residences. Accessing Airport Road from South Meadows can be
a problem, and definitely feels another access is needed. Another
concern is the existing fence between Bluestone Drive and the
proposed development. The fence has served to keep out peopls
and dogs.
John E. Cusick and Linda M. Cusick, 1405 4th Ave West, wrote of
their concerns regarding the proposed Belmar Addition. Their
property on the north and west would border this addition. They
have horses and are concerned with the possibility and
probability of having children and dogs coming into the horse
pasture and becoming injured. Also, children getting into Ashley
Creek which is on the west side of their property, and having an
accident. There is wildlife that frequents the area, and they
would miss seeing that. If the development is ap(�rc�vf:cl, they
requested the Planning Board include the builidng of a chain link
fence to help deter children from entering their horse pasture
and Ashley Creek.
The meeting was opened to Board discussion.
Discussion Fraser asked how many lots in Ashley Park? Parsons said there
was a total of 240 lots in all phases.
Lopp addressed the issue of the riparian protection zone, which
has been a firm recommendation of this Board that wherever a
subdivision is immediately adjacent to a stream, that `l ,,pro be a
50 foot riparian setback maintained with undisturbed native
vegetation, and wanted this added as condition #15. Carver asked
if this was a county or city regulation? This rc:quircw.:tit will
make those lots real tight. Parsons replied that it was part of
the stream protection policy of the Flathead Coonservation District.
DeGrosky said it came out of the Best Forest Management Act for
stream protection. Carver argued that this was Ashley Creek and
he would like to see this lot be made an exception to Board policy
of protecting all waterways. DeGrosky stated that this standard
has been applied to every development since his term on the
Board and he was unwilling to change now.
DeGrosky also stated he had misgivings about developing in the
floodplain. History has shown that building in the flon01t1;J,% i4
not a good idea, even though fill can be hauled in to raise the
level. Wood pointed out that it is common practice to allOW
construction in the floodplain, which is differentiated from the
floodway. There are different standards that ns _ d to biz: met for
different structures. For a -single family residence, the floor
elevation has to be two feet above the floodplain.
Carlson expressed concern about someone else getting flooded,
because the floodplain had been plugged up and we are jest
waiting for the next event to happen to see who is going to Got
flooded by someone else clogging up the floodplain. Wood said
that the amount of fill is regulated as well, so that there is a
3
certain amount of fill allowed in any given segment of the
floodplain. DeGrosky had a problem with the public policy set
here, where he questioned the sensibility of constructing in the
floodplain and then bailing people out when they get flooded.
Fraser assured the Board that the standards for building in the
floodplain are rigorous, and the developer is aware of what
permits are needed. Carlson was concerned about a purchaser
who may get flooded out and will look back to why we approved
it. Parsons said that purchasers will know that the buildin is
constructed on the floodplain and that fill was brought in. The
map will not be changed.
Constructing the roads to City standards was discussed, and the
requirement for street lights was included in condition #4, in
accordance with the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations.
Motion Kennedy made the motion to adopt the findings of fact in report
#KPP-95-01 of Belmar Addition, and forward a favorable
recommendation for preliminary plat with the recommendations as
amended: #4 to include street lights; #8 indicating that all road
in the subdivision shall be paved to Kalispell standards; and the
addition of #15. "That a 50 foot setback from the high water mark_
of Ashley Creek be established, protected and maintained with
native vegetation in accordance with the Flathead Conservation_
District regulations for riparian zones." Lopp seconded. On a
roll call vote DeGrosky, Hodgeboom, Ki,-n i-ply, Lopp, Sanders,
Fraser, Bahr, and TIT.-ish voted aye. Carlson voted nay. The
motion carried 8-1.
LONEPINE VIEW Next, Hash introduced a request by Kathryn Stevenson on behalf
ESTATES of Mike Spring for preliminary plat approval of Lonepinc View
PHASE 2 / Estates Subdivision Phase 2. Phase 2 includes 11 lots for single
PRELIMINARY family/duplex residential development zonal County R-4. The
PLAT proposal would be connected to City water and sewer services,
have paved streets, and access Sunnyside Drive. The properly
is located on the southwest side of Ashley Creek approximately 600
feet south of Sunnyside Drive and is more particularly described
as part of Assessor's Tract 7 in the NW4 of Section 19, T28N,
R21W, P.M.M., Flathead County.
Staff Report Parsons presented an overview of report #FPP-95-04. Phase 1 of
Lonepine View EMates Subdivision was approved a year ago, and
staff displayed a plat to illustrate how the phases integrate.
Based on evaluation the requested plat meets all the necessary
criteria for approval of a subdivision, and staff recommended
approval with 1.5 conditions attached.
Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to all those in favor of the
project.
Its Favor Thor Jackola, engineer reprf-sc-T3i;,five for the project, said the
primary purpose of Phase 2, is to improve the economics of the
subdivision and make: the lots more affordable. The conditi:;>>:: ;,P
approval for the first phase will be car ried.through on this phase
for roads, etc. to meet city standards, and there will be city
services to the site.
4
Opposition Mr. Lautaret, 824 Sunnyside Drive, whose property is between this
proposal and Ashley Creek, said he was concerned with the
drainage. He wanted provisions to be made so that the water
does not fill his basement. This year thorc leas been a lot of
water, and the way his house is situated, he doesn't want the run
off from this subdivision ending up in his bases ,nt.
President Hash noted that two letters in opposition were received
and distributed to Board members, which were read into the
record.
Deborah Moon, 808 Sunnyside Drive, "I have many concerns about
the proposed addition of 11 more single family units on this site,
some of which include increased traffic, impact oti the schools,
increased noise level, and impact on Ashley Creek. All the traffic
from this project will feed directly onto Sunnyside Drive ti+ ldcit is
at that point out of t;ity Ihnit:s and a haven for pedestrian, cycler,
joggers, etc. Everyone from families with small cliilclreit on bikes,
to seniors looking for a safe stretch of road for walking in quiet,
to the high school cross-country team, to the many people
exercising their dogs. Hikers are afforded access to Lone Pine
Park from the entrance at the end of Sunnysidv/Valley View.
People come from all over the west side of town for a walking
experience devoid of the quantity of traffic anal noise in their
neighborhoods. If Phase 2 is approved with 11 more sites along
with the 22 already approved there could realistically be 60+ extra
cars traversing onto Sunnyside; with R-4 zoning these could be
duplexes, doubling that figure. It is likely that young families
would make up a large portion of the residents and the
elementary school for the arse a is Peterson, which according to
District 5 is "a very full school". As a substitute teacher, I ace
the impact of over large classrooms and the decrease of quality
services to student when that happens. The existing access road
must be widened to the proposed moasuremerits and I'm concerned
about the proximity of Ashley Creek and the possible impact on
the creek environment. According to the Flathead Coriseitvation
District the road needs to be a minimum of 50 feet from the creek,
with a wide vegetation harrier to deal with runoff from i h-
impervious surface. This along with other conditions that of ed to
be met with the required permit from the Conservation District
concern me as to whether the integrity of the fragile c:rnek
environment will be preserved. The creek runs from that point
along my property and is home to ducks, fish, herons, muskrats,
geese, osprey and other native inhabita n f ., vital to this area. I
am opposed to approval of this project as I feel the ir: ;-act.;; are
not in the best interests of the neighborhood and extended
eta v it=;=-irtient.
ft
James Battee, Sunnyside Drive, " I reside oct Sunnyside Drive and
am writivig ire record to the Lone Pine View subdivision proposed
south and west of where Ashley Creek crosses Sunnysiclo. I have
a number of concerns about the impact this concentrated
development will have on this area. Sunnyside and Valley View
T)rive loop into Foys Lake Road. This route is used by walkers,
jns gers, bicyclists, cross country fro=n teh high school
and people from all over west of town because of its rural
5
atmosphere and relatively low traffic use. Both phases of the
proposed development could increase the number of households by
a minimum of 33. That would increase traffic at least 130 trips
per day. I use Sunnyside to walk my dogs, jog and bicycle and
the exhaust from one can can be semlled several minutes after it
went by. Multiply that by 130 or more per day and Sunnyside
Drive becomes not such a pleasant rural atmosphere to enjoy - it
becomes a major thoroughfare and I strongly object. I realize
this development looks good as far as tax revenue, but please
consider the rural atmosphere and usage it now has and how it
would change. There are currently several other development
which are better serviced by roads and accesses. I am certainly
not in favor of stopping all development, but this one seems out
of place considering it. :servicability and impact on the
neighborhood, Ashley Creek, and schools. Only time will tell, but
I cast my vote against further approval for more housing."
There being no further public input, the public hearing was
closed and it was turned over to Board discussion.
Discussion Fraser thought this proposal looked consistent with the previcois
phases brought before this Board. He sympathized with the
concerns regarding traffic and school
DeGrosky addressed the letter received from the County Weed
Department. He questioned the consistency between the f_ its= a red
County Subdivision Regulations. A fairness issue was raised when
Lopp noted that the conditions of approval for Dennis Carver's
project was specifically stated for streets, etc., but are not for
this proposal. Parsons responded that Carver's subdivision was
reviewed by the Site Plan Review Committee as a city subdivi-ion.
This one is a county subdivision, under the county jurisdiction,
and thus have different standards. Lopp pointed out that
eventually this will be part of the city and the residents will he
required to bring it up to city standards. Fraser pointed out
that the quality of this application in terms of conformance to city
standards is significantly different than the Belmar Addition, and
he thinks the wording of the conditions reflect the qualily of the
proposal. If a development proposes sidewalks, the conditions are
going to be different than for a proposal that does not.
Motion Kennedy moved to adopt FRDO report #FPP-94-04 as findings of
fact and forward a recommendation for approval of the plat for
Lonepine View Estates subject to the 15 conditions attached, with
the following amendments: Condition 413 .;hall conform to
standards, instead of County, and add condition ##16: "All areas
disturbed durinff developxfsent of the subdivision shall be
revea-etated in accordance with a Plan approved by the Flathead
Cozrn y Weed Control Poard. Any disturbanres within the
floocjplain area of Ash��Creek shall be revec,etated immediately."
Fraser seconded. On a roll call vote Sanders, Kennedy, Bahr,
Hodgeboom, Fraser and 11ash voted aye. DeGrosky, Carlson and
Lopp voted no. The motion carried on a 6-3 vote.
DeGrosky explained is negative vote for the record. He felt it was
a well designed project,- but he had concern over 1:1-te
0
inconstinency in the requirement for street lights for Belmar
Addition and not for this one.
GLACIER The next item was a req[A(-st by George Schulze and Duane Bitney
VILLAGE for preliminary plat approval of Glacier Village Greens Phases VII
GREENS - and VIII. Phase VII includes 17 lots for single family detached
PHASES VII & residential development along both sides of Ritzman Lane west of
VIII / Palmer Drive; Phase VIII includes 11 single family lots for detached
PRELIMINARY development and one lot .for duplex development (attached single
PLAT family) for a total of 30 units on 29 lots located on both sides of
Ritzman Lane on the west side of Nicklaus Drive. Glacier Village
Greens is located on the north side of -West Evergreen Drive
approximately 1/2 mile east of Whitefish Stage Road and is further
described as part of Tract 2A in ihr: 51_ of Section 32, T29N, R21W,
P.M.M., Flathead County.
Staff Report Parsons presented report #FPP-` 5--01. Rased on the evaluation in
accordance with the necessary criteria for review of a preliminary
plat, staff recommended approval. subject to 17 conditions.
Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to proponents of the subdivision.
In Favor Tom Sands, surveyor/technical assitant representing tlic
applicants, stated that this is a continuation of a development that
has been ongoing for the past 6-7 years. He said that Duane
Rit:ney was not able to attend this meeting, and he was available
for questions. He had questions regarding a couple of condition
of approval. On condition #2, the road runs north -south and not
east -west and he will supply staff with a copy of the COS. He
asked if Condition #5 for the cul-de-sac radius was a city or
county standard? He argued condition #9 for cash -in -lieu of
parkland because the Glacier Village Greens Subdivision has
already dedicated parkland in three different phases, amottratiiig
to a tot: I. of 30 acres of parkland to be improved in conjunction
with the entire project. This condition is unacceptable.
There being no further testimony either in favor or in opposition
to the proposed subdivision, the public hearin; was closed and it
was opened up for Board discussion.
Discussion The conditions of approval are essen i,a11y the same as for the
other phases of this development, except for the parkland
dedication. That is an issue, because the Commissioners and staff
has concern over what is being developed and what has not yet
been developed, and when it is supposed to be developed. There
has been concern at many levels.
Fraser said that since #2 is a moot issue, it can remain. With
regards to condition 49, if left as stated, they will take it up with
the Commissioners. Lopp complimented the developer on putting
the standards in the proposal, so that it does not have to be
argued again.
?Motion Fraser moved to accept staff report #FPP-95-01 as findings of
fact, and forward a favorable recommendation to the Commissioners
for 'Glacier Village Greens Phases VII and V111 subject to the 17
7
conditions as set forth. Carlson seconded. On a roll call vote the
motion carried on a unanimous vote of 9-0 in favor.
Parsons gave some rough figures based on the previous 6 phases;
there are approximately 40 acres of lots, and 28 acres of useable
homeowners park available, so there is a substantial area set aside
for parkland. The question that arises is when are we going to
see some of those parks developed? They are working on the
lake, however.
Mike Fraser stepped down from the Board for the next agenda
item due to a conflict of interest.
EVERGREEN Next, Hash introduced a request by Flathead Electric Co-op for
RAIL AND preliminary plat approval on approximately 36 acres of I-1 and B-2
INDUSTRIAL zoned property to be known as Evergreen Rail Industrial Center.
CENTER / Three (3) commercial lots would front US Highway 2 and 12
PRELIMINARY industrial lots would front on the interior road This
PLAT subdivision would utilize West Reserve Drive, US Highway 2 and
Terry Road to access this development. The property is located
between Burlington Northern Railroad and US Highway 2, and
between West Reserve Drive and Terry Road. The site is further
described as Tracts SAB, SBA, 5BAA, and Teigen's Addition t3lock
1, Lots 4 and 5, Block 2, Lots 1 and 2 in the NW4 of Sect.i,>n 33,
T29N, R21W, P.M.M., Flathead County.
Staff Report Parsons gave a detailed overview of report #FPP-95-03. Based on
evaluation of the proposal in accordance with the neccessary
criteria for review of a subdivision, staff recommended approval
subject to 16 conditions.
Public Hearing The public hearing v:a>: opened to proponents of the project.
In Favor Warren McConkey, General Manager for Flathead Electric Co-op,
spoke as the representative for the project. He outlined a bit of
the history of the property, which has been in FEC ownership for
many years. They have been approached to divide the property
for industrial development. They purchased the two residential
lots in the area, because in the long run a harmonious
development should have residential uses intermingled with
commercial and industrial. This development plan is in response
to some of the requests for sale or lease of their property. He
feels they have put together a responsible and well -planned
development for the Evergreen area. They have established from
the numerous inquiries that there is a need for a rail industrial
use. The property is zoned for that type of use, and is one of
the few industrial zoned areas in the Valley with rail frontage..
We feel we are offering a first class development to enhance the
community. We will be encouraging all tenants and purchasers to
develop facilities similar to the Bonneville Power Administration
building or our own facility. We are defiriit4-1.y tr\irrg to set
standards. This will be a first class industrial park. It will be
a very substantial tax base, especially when you consider that the
taxes will he very high in relation to the burden placed on the
community, because it does not greatly impact the sehnc,ls siioh as
a. high traffic residential type development woi0d. Rail access is
0
considered to be a very efficient and effective mode of
transportation. We feel we are offering an access to the railroad
for smaller volume users that will not be a major rail industrial
center, but one that the small businessperson and industrial uses
in the valley can access. Overall, it will be a positive impact to
roads in the valley, because there should be an increase in rail
shipments instead of truck shipments. They propose to collect
traffic within the development and it will not be a strip
development. The internal road system will access Reserve Drive
to the north and limited access from Highway 2. He was pleased
with the staff recommendation, however had three concerns to
address. (1) Regarding Condition #3, they intend to delete any
provision for a future interior road from Lasalle and will remove
it from the plat. (2) Condition #8 pertaining to the Lot t
encroachment, he explained that they have made arrangements
with the owners of the property who are gt6te elderly. The
owners did not want to sell their property and move to an
unfamiliar home at their age. It was arranged that as long as
they desire to live in the house, they will have tenancy rights.
When they no longer live in the house, it will be removed. (3)
They are not in total agreement with condition #5, relative to
Terry Road. They acknowledge that Terry Road is in poor
condition, but think that since it is a county road, that its all
fairness , thc� re should be some responsibility to the existing uses
by Flathead County. We do accept that we have a very major
obligation to rebuilding and accomodating our fair share of the
impact we will have on Terry Road. We ask that you he realt4tic,
that there are other developments that are or will be occurring
in the Terry Road area, or just south on Judith Road. We know
that there is at one 3-lot development currently under
consideration that will generate a lot of triv,k traffic that will end
up on Terry Road. We think there should be an allocation of
responsibility for upgrading Terry Road that would include
Flathead County and other developers on the road. There are
existing semi truck units that use Terry Road other than our own.
We also question the appropriateness of curb and gutter design
on this road. We especially feel this is true prior to development
of several parcels on the south side of Terry Road. The vast
majority of the traffic will access north on West Reserve, which
will be the natural traffic flow. He referred to Dave Meredith to
further address these concerns.
Dave Meredith, of Clarke &- Meredith Architects, said that Warren
had covered everything very well. He proceeded to suggest somF•
language for the conditions which were questioned. Condition #3
can be deleted as it is taken care of. Condition #5 regarding
Terry Road was the serious one and he would like to be more
specific. Terry Road runs off of Highway 2 and dead ends at the
railroad track. The way the recommendation reads now, it saes
the entire length of the road, from the highway to the track
should be improved to handle semi -trailer truck traffic. Basically,
the development of the road from Cooperative Way, which is the
road that will dump the semi's onto it, to the tracks %ill not be
used because it is a dead end. They would like to see that
portion taken out of the recommendation. The south is currently
zoned R-3. if that zone should change to industrial, then that
0
property owner should pay for the development of that chunk of
road. He would like to see the language changed to say that
Terry Road be improved to the standards as defined from the
highway to Cooperative Way. Lots 8 and 9 are being held
specifically for Flathead Electric Co-op's future improvement. It.
will be developed as one piece. Right now, the plan is to develop
and connect onto Cooperative Way with the development of tl::it,
road, and not use Terry Road for access. Meredith said that if
there is access from Lots 8 and 9 to Terry Road, then they will
improve the road.
Mr. McConkey asked if that would affect the ballfield access? At
this time "hey expect to continue their relationship with the
Evergreen Lions to provide those two ballfields.
Mr. Meredith went on to address curbs and gutters. Curbs and
gutters aren't generally required in an industrial area, because
of the type of development for turning radius for trucks, etc.
Basically, what happens in industrial areas, is as each of these
lots are improved, this will be paved. Any major traffic area on
these lots will have to be paved for dust control under the new
EPA standards. Since this is being developed for industrial uses,
he questioned whether there should be curbs or gutters, at all.
He doesn't think there should be. The only residential piece they
own is to the south, with two houses on it.
Parsons said that the curb and gutter were intended for Terry
Road, but on the interior road it would not be necessary.
Meredith argued that since it is industrial for the entire 700 Fret
of Flathead Electric's land, should Flathead Electric Coop p u t
curbs and gutters across the street for their neighbors to the
south. If there is a RSID or a curb, gutfcr .j:=,1 sidewalk system
that should go tt-rotigh this development in the future, then the
Flathead Co-op could waive the right to protest and do it at that
time. There is alot of undeveloped land here. The entire lot from
Judith Road to the railroad tracks is vacant at this time. It is
hard to predict what. will happen. He asked the Board to
reconsider the language in condition #5. He has no problem with
item #8. Those encroachments can be defined in the covenants.
There were no further speakers in favor of flee proposal. No one
spoke in opposition. The public hearing was closed and it was
turned over to Board discussion.
Discussion The curbs and glitters issue was addressed. Parsons su;s_xested
that if Lots 8 and 9 were conditioned to be combined and access
only off of Cooperative Way, there would be no need to improve
that portion of Terry Road.
Lopp referred to the letter from Marc Pitman, regarding AASHTQ
standards, noting that the curb and gutters are not necessarily
the AASHTO standard, but would be preferable for an urban
design. A waiver of protest to an RSID was deemed unnecessary
and was not included as part: of the condition. Condition :15 w3.s
amended to insert "...from H.iyhway 2 to Cooperative Way and to
10
delete the reference to eta- gtt-rrc}... By consensus,
Condition #5 was amended to read:
5. Terry Road be reconstructed or brought up to A.ASHTO WB-60
standards for semi-trailer/full trailer combination traffic loads
from Highway 2 to Cooperative Way, for a rate increase of 200
vehicle trips per day, with appropriate
drainage, as approved by the Flathead County Road Department,
and as certified by a licensed engineer registered in the State of
Montana as baving been done.
Parsons suggested language for an additional condition to read:
Combine Lots 8 and 9 into a singrle lot. Access to the new lot will
be from Cooperative Way only. upon development or redevelopment
of the new lot. The "no access" easement shall be shown on the
final plat and indicated in the covenants.
The applicants' request to continue using Logs 8 and 9 for
ballfields was discussed. Parsons responded that the current use
would not be affected.
Motion DeGrosky moved to adopt subdivision report #FPP-95-03 as
findings of fact and forward it with a favorable recommendation
for Evergreen Rail and Industrial Center sub;ect to the conditions
as amended with the addition of 417 as stated. Lopp seconded.
On a roll call vote Bahr, Lopp, Sanders, Carlson, Hodgehoom,
DeGrosky, Kennedy and Hash voted aye. Fraser abstained. The
motion carried 8-0-1.
CITY OF
The next public hearing was on requests by the City of Kalispeel
KALISPELL
for changes in zone from P-1 to B-2 (Change "A"); from P-1 to I-1
AIRPORT
(Change "B"); and from B-2 to P-1 (Change "C"). The P-1 to B-2
ZONE CHANGES /
(Change "A") property is 12.5 acres located on tho west side of
"A" P-1 TO B-2
US Highway 93 south of the National Guard Armory and is known
"B" P-1 TO 1-1
as Parcel 6 of COS 11395 in the NW4 of Section 20, T28N, R21W.
"C" B-2 TO P-1
Access would be from US Highway 93. The P-1 to I-1 (Change
"B") is approximately 40 acres, located on the east side of Airport
Road from approximately 300 south of 18th Street West to
Treatment Plant Road, and is known as parts of Parcel 1 and
Parcel 4 of COS 11395, and COS 5041, and Assessor Tracts 3AB and
3AA in the NW4 of Section 20, T28N, R21W. Access would be from
Airport Road and Treatment Plant Road. The B-2 to P-1
properties are located on the northeast and northwest corners of
Airport Read and 18th Street West and are known as Assessor
Tracts 5, 5-25, 5-25C and 5-31 in Section 17, T28N, R21W, and
Parcel C of COS 11395 in Section 18, T28; R21W. Development of
the properties would utilize City services.
Staff Report Parsons presented report #KZC-95-01. Based on the Kalispell City -
County Master T i ,:s to be amended. to adopt the Kalispell Airpot-t
Neighborhood Plan, the requested zone changes are in compliance
with the designation in the Master Plan. Based on evaluation or
the statutory criteria for zone changes, staff recommended
approval of the requests. No letters were rece.jved re-- +it, ling t1his
matter.
11.
Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of any one of
t e requestt�cl -zone changes, either "A",
, A„ „ , B„ 11C. , or
No one spoke in favor of the City requested zone changes.
Opposition Jack Beaver, 1320 Airport Road, said that .his family owns lots 5
and 5-25 on the northeast corner of Airport Road. He has many
objections to zone change request "C" (B-2 to P-1). The City
wishes to rezone the property from B-2 (Commercial) to P-1
(Public). This is not a rezoning in the classic sense, but an
attempt to gain ownership of the property through the zoning
process. This constitutes an act of condemnation of the prroperty
and should be subject to Montana Code 70 Chapter 30, under
Eminent Domain. Under MCA 70-30-I11 facts necessary to be
found before condemnation, he read item 4 "That an effort to
obtain the interests sought to be condemned was made by a
submission of a written offer and such offer was rejected." The
City has not submitted such an offer. Essentially, what the City
wants to do is zone this property P-1 without a change of
ownership. If you look under the intent of the P-1 zoning, you
will find that it is a public district, and he has a problem with
that. He added that this same argument applies to Mrs.
Titnmreck's property, as well.
No one else spoke in opposition. The public hearing was closed,
and the m.,et.ing opened to Board discussion.
Discussion Hash asked Parsons regarding Mr. Beaver's concerns and the fact
that P-1 district is a public zone, Kennedy interrupted that this
property is mandated to be used as a runway protection zone.
Parsons said that the issue brought up is not an issue that can
be resolved by the Planning Board.
Hash asked if this had been brought up to the City Attomtey?
Parsons said that it has been discussed among staff. Kennedy
said that it has been discussed at City Council meetings and
Council is going ahead. The P-1 zone makes the property
unbuildable, so the City knows it has a responsibility to purchase
the property.
Fraser asked if the City intended to purchase the entire
properties, or just airspace rights? Kennedy explained there was
a buy -sell on the Tittimreck property, and the problem is that the
City cannot issue a building permit on the property.
DeGrosky felt that this is jumping the gun, assuming that it is all
said and done that the property is rezoned. This gentletran
raises an excellent point. The City is attempting to acquire
property through zoning. That doesn't sound good. Kenriedy
argued that she does not believe the city is trying to acquire
property. It is zoning it appropriate to the adoption of the
Airport Neighborhood Plan.
DeGrosky replied that in the meantime the city is nl�ikir,g the
landowners' property economically useless. I typically have an
automatic negative reaction whenever anyone says "taking",
12
because so many people have thrown that word around without
having a clue as to what they are talking about, but I think in
this case, we are seriously talking about a legitimate taking of
property value. My feeling is that the City should buy it, and
then they can zone it anyway they want after they own it.
Hash said that this zoning is being done to facilitate the
neighborhood plan, and she would agree that when you render an
owner's land useless, it is a.. taking. It seems that this issue is
not for this Board to determine, and it is already being acted
upon. If there is dissatisfaction, there are avenues for those
property owners.
Kennedy stated that an additional reason for putting proper
zoning on it, in reference to the buy -sell on the Timmreck
property, the potential purchasers (lid r-et know that it was in the
runway proiection area., because of the current zoning. If it is
zoned P-1, then they will know that they cannot build on the
property.
DeGrosky said that it all makes goon sense, but his concern is
what if the City and Mr. Heaver are not able to agree on a sale
price on the property, and it doesn't sell, then he is sitting on
a piece of property that he can't use.
Kennedy said that he can continue to use his land as he is
currently using it, and would be grandfathered in. That hr= i,ijld
not change the use now under the existing B-2 zone. because of
the runway protection zone.
Fraser pointed out that Mr. Beaver could use, Lis property as
allowed under the current B-2 zone, which allows uses other than
residential. He just signed a certificate of appointment that says
he will uphold the laws of the State of Montana. In this
situation, we have the cart before the horse. He thinks it is
appropriate to zone it P-1, but it is important that the city
acquire the property prior to zeroing- it P-1.
Mr. Beaver requested and was granted an audience. He asked
that if you were to retain the current B-2 zoning on this
property, and yet be disallowed the permitted uses on that piece
of property, whether it is use, height restrictions, or whatever,
t sat is essentially defacto rezoning, also.
DeGrosky said he shared Fraser's concern, that lei- ties a hard
time re ;ardless of the good intentions and the good public
benefits of the runway protections zone, which I support fully. I
jivit have a hard time signing on to something which I know is
potentially i?legal.
Kennedy did not agree that this was illegal.
Parsons suggested that the staff recommendations be :z�--,i:,.wated
out as "All, "B", and "C". The Board does not necessarily have
to act on this as a package.
13
Lopp stated that he agreed completely with the issue that Ivor.
Beaver's property is in essence be taken from him in the process
of rezoning. The City has clearly made him aware that they
intend to buy the property in order to put it into public domain.
If he were in this situation, he would get a good lawyer to
negotiate not the value of the property as it is being rezoned,
but the value of the property prior to this action. Any Court in
the country will recognize that value. Whether the city wants to
pay that or not, he has legal recourse to get it. Let the city
settle with these people and then come back before this Board.
He has no problem with that course of action, at all. One of the
things that comes up in any kind of condemnation, which this
probably will get to, is that they can't stay on their property.
He commended Flathead Electric Cooperative method of handling
the issue with the elderly couple who live on the north end of
their property of giving them a lifetime use of it. This is a
similar kind of issue. He x i11 supporl si:j::irsting "C" out.
Fraser felt it was important to recognize that we voted in support
of the airport plan. We need to reaffirm to city council our
support of the adopted neighborhood plan for the airport. lie
thinks that regardless of what our recommendation will be, it is
going to be settled in court.
DeGrosky asked but in good conscience, can you recommend
something that y „u don't think is right or legal?
Kennedy argued that it is not illegal. It may not be right, but
that's different.
Hodgeboom said that it seems like a logical sequence for long-
range planning to acquire the property first, and then request
the rezone.
Motion Bahr made the motion to adopt the findings of fact in FRDO staff
report #KZC-95-01, with the elimination of Change "C", and
forward a favorable recommendation to City Council for the
requested Changes "A" and "B". DeGrosky seconded. On a roll
call vote Hodgeboom, Fraser, Bahr, Carlson, Sanders, DeGrosky,
Kennedy, Lapp and Hash voted in favor. The motion carried 9-4
to recommend approval of zone change requests "A" (P-1 to B-2)
and "B" (P-1 to 1-1).
Discussion resumed relative to change "C" (B-2 to P-1). Parsons
outlined the options. The Board must act on the request, 1;ecause
it is an active application and the applicant is not willing to
withdraw it at 1.1iis time.
Motion DeGrosky moved to recommend denial of zoi;e clf:inr- - "C
Motion Kennedy wanted to zone the property appropriately so that future
poteril ial buyers of these properties would know that it is in the
runway protection zone. Kennedy moved to forward a fav:.,rable
recommendation to city council to grant the zone from B-2
to P-1. v
14
It was pointed out that there was already a motion on the floor.
Kennedy said there was no second. DeGrosky said she didn't
allo ,• time for anyone to second. Sanders seconded DeGrosky's
motion.
Discussion The Board proceeded to make findings to support the
recommendation for denial. Lopp said we should include language
that we are in favor of the P-1, but not at this time because of
the question of ownership. Bahr agreed that it was totally
inappropriate to zone this P-1 when it is not in public ownership.
The Board made findings on the following:
Would the Proposed Zoning Conserve the Value of the Buildings?
Although the existing buildings located on the property a.re
permitted to continue as to their existing use, the value of the
buildings and the property would be seriously impacted by the
adoption of the P-1 zone, therefore we recommend that until it is
in public ownership it not be zoned as public property.
]Kennedy argued that the Timmreck property has no buildings on
it, and therefore would not fall under the finding as stated.
Carlson stated that he had a problem with the motion, as it is too
negative. We have supported the ?Master Plan, we have supported
the neighborhood plan, and zone "A" and "B" all the way
through. We are in favor of the runway protection zone as part
of the package. We have been submitted something which 4s ,�
cannot deal with, but the city can. He would like to send it on
to council with a recommendation that they deal with it.
Lopp wanted it stressed for city council that the Board would like
a resolution of the issue of zoning non public land prior to public
ownership. As a Board we support and have supported the
airport plan, including the runway protection zone and would
encourage resolution of this conflict.
Hash asked that the motion be restated.
Restate Motion Zone change "C" was recommended for denial based on the
following findin :
Would the Proposed Zoninx Conserve the Value of the Buildings?
Although the existing buildings located on the property are
permitted to continue as to their existing use, the value of the
buildings and the property would be seriously impacted by the
adoption of the P-1 zone, therefore we rocowm -atd that until it is
in public ownership it not be zoned as public pr<,i i-rty.
DeGrosky stated that based on that finding of fact, his motion
stands. On a roll call vote Lopp, Hodgeboom, Sanders, Bahr,
DeGrosky and Fraser voted aye. Carlson, Kennedy and Hash voted
no. The motion carried on a G-3 vote to reco;n.mend denial of the
15
requested zone change "C" from B-2 to P-1 based on the findings
as discussed.
KALISPELL The next public hearing watt on a request by the City of Kalispell
ZONING TEXT to amend the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance Text, Chapter 27.25,
AMENDMENT / Nonconforming Lots, Uses, and Structures. This amendment will
NONCONFORMING consider allowing, under certain circumstances, structural
USES alterations and additions to existing nonconforming residential
structures.
Staff Report Parsons presented staff review of the request to amend the
Kalispell Zoning Ordinance Text Chapter 27.25 - Nonconforming
Lots, Uses and Structures. [FRDO report 4KZTA-a4-071 Based on
the analysis, staff recommended that the text be amended as
follows:
CHAPTER 27.25 - Non -conforming Lots. Uses, _and Structures
The amended first paragraph of the Intent (Section
27.25.010):
It is the intent of this chapter to permit
nonconformities which were lawful before the adoption
of this code to continue until they are removed. It
is further the intent of this chapter that
nonconformities shall not, unless otherwise permitted
by this chapter, be enlarged upon or expanded, or be
used as grounds for adding other structures or uses
prohibited elsewhere in the same district.
Second paragraph to remain unchanged.
Add new Section 27.25.045, Changes to Nonconforming
Residential Structures:
A residential structure conforming with respect to use
but non -conforming with respect to height, setback,
or lot coverage may be enlarged or altered provided
that the enlargement or alteration does not further
deviate from these regulations. Further the repair or
replacement of bearing walls is permitted on any non-
conforming residential structure.
Amend index to reflect Section 27.25.045
Public Hearin. The public hearing was opened. No one spoke either in favor or
in opposition to the requested zoning text amendment. The ptibli:,
hearing was closed and it was turned over to Board, discussion.
Discussion Hash expressed concern about building a nonconforming structure.
Brian Wood explained that the intent of the text amendment seas
to permit existing nonconforming structures to repair, maintain
and replace their residential structures. The number of variance
requests per month indicates a need for the modification in the
ordinance.
16
Motion Carlson moved to adopt report #KZTA-95-01 (correct report number
#KZTA94-071 as findings of fact to propose to City CnijT,('il to
amend the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance Chapter 27.25, Section
27.25.010 and 27.25.045. Bahr seconded. On a roll gall vote all
members voted aye. The motion carried on a 9-0 vote in favor of
the zoning text amendment relative to nonconforming lots, uses
and structures.
OLD BUSINESS There was no old business.
NEW BUSINESS Parsons reviewed the agenda for the next meeting. The hospital
PUD will be before the Braid iii March.
The Board discussed the internal checklist. There was an
expressed desire to be consistent in applying certain conditions
to subdivisions, such as, the riparian protection zone, street
lights, sidewalks, weed control, etc.
Kennedy interjected that she personally did not believe that it
was the Board's place to tell John how to do his job. That in
essence is what we are doing by developing a checklist and
telling him to always have the same conditions in each report. He
has a set of guidelines to follow in his review process of any
subdivision, zone change, etc. If we are looking for consistency
between the city and county regulations, then approach the
governing bodies.
Lopp suggested that a study session be scheduled for Board
members to discuss their concerns. Carlson agreed that there
should be consistency, as the City will expand and annex.
Parsons said lie will prepare an outline for the March meeting and
potential dates for a study session.
DeGrosky announced that he will be resigning from the Board as
lie is moving out of state. He anticipates his last meeting will be
in June.
ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at
11:00 P.M.
A
Therese Fox Hash, President -,lr z7-ab Ontko, Recording Secretary
APPROVED: n /l
<
17