05. Ordinance 1219 - Airport Zone Change - 2nd ReadingORDINANCE NO. 1219
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 27.02.010, OFFICIAL ZONING MAP, CITY
OF KALISPELL ZONING ORDINANCE, (ORDINANCE NO. 1175), BY ZONING THE
TRACTS OF LAND INCLUDED IN EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND THEREBY
MADE A PART HEREOF, (CHANGE "A", PREVIOUSLY ZONED PUBLIC, P-1, TO
GENERAL BUSINESS, B-2; AND CHANGE "B", PREVIOUSLY ZONED PUBLIC, P-
1, TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, I-1; IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE KALISPELL CITY -
COUNTY MASTER PLAN, AND TO PROVIDE AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the tracts of land included in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto and thereby made a part hereof, are tracts of land located
on or in the area of the Municipal Airport, more specifically as
follows:
Change "A" is located generally south of the National
Guard Armory on the west side of US Highway 93;
Change "B" is generally located north of the sewage
treatment plant access road on the east side of Airport
Road; and
WHEREAS, the City of Kalispell, pursuant to Section 27.30.010,
Kalispell Zoning Ordinance requested that the zoning classification
of said tracts of land be changed as follows:
Change "A" from Public, P-1, to General Business, B-2;
Change "B" from, Public, P-1, to Light Industrial, I-1; and
WHEREAS, said tracts of land are primarily used as follows:
Change "A" contains ball fields;
Change "B" contains airport uses, forest service offices,
and other non-residential uses; and
WHEREAS, the request of the City of Kalispell was the subject
of a report compiled by the Flathead Regional Development Office,
#KZC-95-01, February 5, 1995, in which the Flathead Regional
Development Office evaluated the request and recommended that said
tracts of land be rezoned as follows: Change "A" General
Business, B-2; and Change "B" Light Industrial, I-1; as requested
by the petition, and
WHEREAS, the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning
Commission held a public hearing after due and proper notice, on
February 14, 1995, and considered all of the facts relevant to the
zone change request, including the FRDO report and public input,
and
WHEREAS, the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning
Commission issued a report recommending that said tracts of land be
zoned as follows:
1
Change "A" General Business, B-2; Change "B" Light
Industrial, I-1; and
WHEREAS, after considering FRDO Report #KZC-95-01 and the
report the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning
Commission submitted on the proposal to zone said tracts of land as
follows: Change "A" General Business, B-2; and Change "B" Light
Industrial, I-1; the City Council of the City of Kalispell makes
the following based upon the criterion set forth in Section 76-2-
304, MCA, and State etc. v. Board of County Commissioners, etc.,
590 P2d 602:
Does the Requested Zone Comply with the Master Plan?
The subject property is within the jurisdiction of the
Kalispell City -County Master Plan and Airport Neighborhood
Plan. According to the master plan, change "A" is designated
for commercial use, change "B" is designated for light
industrial, and change "C" is designated as the "Airport
Protection Zone". Therefore, the proposed zoning
classifications are in conformance with the Master Plan.
Will the Requested Zone Secure Safety from Fire, Panic and
Other Dangers
Development within the requested zones are subject to certain
standards including maximum building height and the provision
of off-street parking. Further, any development of the
property is subject to review by the City's Site Plan Review
Committee, and requires the issuance of City building,
plumbing, and mechanical permits. These requirements and
review processes help ensure that development of the property
subsequent to the zone change is done in a safe manner. In
addition, the zones are anticipated in this general location
as stated in the master plan.
Will the Requested Change Promote the Health and General
Welfare?
The general purpose of the City's zoning ordinance is to
promote the general health and welfare and does so by
implementing the City/County Master Plan. The Master Plan
supports the requested zone changes. The changes would not
intrude on the health or general welfare of this particular
neighborhood. The surrounding uses are compatible with the
proposed zoning classification and are anticipated under the
Master Plan.
iq
Will the Requested Zone Provide for Adequate Light and Air?
7
The landscape, open space, building setbacks, parking, etc.
requirements of the zoning ordinance should ensure that light
and air are adequately provided.
Will the Requested Zone Change Prevent the Overcrowding of
Land?
Overcrowding of land can occur when development out -paces or
exceeds the environmental or service limitations of the
property. Adequate infrastructure is in place to accommodate
the land uses allowed in the requested zone.
Will the Requested Zone Avoid Undue Concentration of People?
Concentration of people is a function of land use. Re-
development will certainly occur on this site if the zone
changes are approved. The uses associated with the new zoning
designations anticipate a certain concentration of people and
should not create an undue hardship on the neighborhood.
Will the Requested Zone Facilitate the Adequate Provision of
Transportation, Water, Sewer, Schools, Parks and Other Public
Requirements? - -
The additional demands for transportation, water or sewer
collection will be evaluated pursuant to individual
development proposals. Because the zoning, both existing and
proposed, is nonresidential, schools and parks should not be
impacted.
Does the Requested Zone Give Consideration to the Particular
Suitability of the Property for Particular Uses?
The use that currently occupies site "C" is not appropriate
for the end of an airport runway and the intensity of the
possible uses allowed in the B-2 zone are also not conducive
to development at the end of the runway. The Runway
Protection Zone would only allow the least intensive uses to
avoid conflicts between overflights and the uses contained
thereunder. The Master Plan indicates the RPZ "...is to
enhance the protection of people and property on the ground.
...This zone should be clear of all objects...".
The requested zones and respective uses are well suited for
the areas contained under the request.
Does the Requested Zoning Give Reasonable Consideration to the
Character of this District?
The property under consideration in this proposal fits the
character of the neighborhood. The existing adjoining and
surrounding neighborhood is comprised of a variety of
commercial, recreational, industrial and residential uses and
should acquainted with the impacts of those types of uses.
The requested zone change is not out of character with the
surrounding city scape.
Would the Proposed Zoning_ Conserve the Value of the Buildings?
The existing buildings located on the properties are permitted
to continue as to their existing uses. Therefore, the value
of .the buildings should not be impacted in either case.
Will the Requested Zone Change Encourage the Most Appropriate
Use of the Land Throughout the Jurisdiction?
The requested zoning classification is consistent with the
Kalispell City -County Master Plan. The Plan specifically
identifies this area for airport uses. The jurisdiction
consists of recreational, residential, commercial and
industrial uses. The proposed zone change would be the most
appropriate use of the land.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
KALISPELL AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. Section 27.02.010, of the Official Zoning Map
of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, (Ordinance
#1175) is hereby amended by designating said
tracts of land as follows:
Change "A" General Business, B-2;
Change "B" Light Industrial, I-1.
SECTION II. The balance of Section 27.02.010, Official
Zoning Map, City of Kalispell Zoning Ordinance
not amended hereby shall remain in full force
and effect.
SECTION III. This Ordinance shall be effective thirty (30)
days from and after the date of its final
passage and approval by the Mayor.
4
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR OF THE CITY OF
KALISPELL, THIS DAY OF , 1995.
ATTEST:
Debbie Gifford, CMC
Clerk of Council
5
Douglas D. Rauthe, Mayor
3
Flathead Regional Development Office
723 5th Avenue East - Room 414
Kalispell, Montana 59901
February 23, 1995
Bruce Williams, City Manager
City of Kalispell
P.O. Drawer 1997
Kalispell, MT 59903
Re: City of Kalispell Zone Change -
(Municipal Airport)
� TI-V=113 :_m�
Phone: (406) 758-5780
Fax: (406) 758-5781
Change "A" from P-1 to B-2;
Change "B" from P-1 to I-1;
Change "C" from B-2 to P-1
The Kalispell City -County Planning Board, acting as the Zoning Commission, met
on February 14, 1995, and held a public hearing on the following agenda item:
Requests by the City of Kalispell for changes in zone from P-1 to B-2
(Change "A"), from P-1 to I-1 (Change "B"), and from B-2 to P-1 (Change
"C"). The P-1 to B-2 (Change "A") property is 12.5 acres located on the
west side of US Highway 93 south of the National Guard Armory and is
known as Parcel 6 of COS 11395 in the NW4 of Section 20, T28N, R21W.
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 feet 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 Road 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, T28N, R21W. Development of the properties would utilize City
services.
Report #KZC-95-01 was presented by John Parsons of the Flathead Regional
Development Office. The requests were evaluated in accordance with the statutory
criteria for zone changes. Based on the evaluation, staff recommended granting
approval of the requested zone changes.
No one spoke in favor of the zone change requests.
One person spoke in opposition to the request for the zone change from B-2 to
P-1, stating that it was an attempt by the City to take property without a change
of ownership, and rendering his property, which is zoned for business uses, less
valuable, by zoning it for public use. He was very much opposed to the rezone.
He also spoke for his neighbor, whose property is zoned B-2, as well, and is
included in this rezone to P-1.
The Zoning Commission discussed at length the public testimony regarding the
"takings" issue. Several Board members argued that the P-1 zoning of the
property was premature to the acquisition of the same. A motion was made to
adopt the findings of fact in report #KZC-95-01 and recommend granting the zone
Providing Community Planning Assistance To:
* Flathead County * City of Columbia Falls * City of Kalispell * City of Whitefish
Bruce Williams, City Manager
Re: Kalispell Zone Change (Municipal Airport)
February 23, 1995
Page 2
change requests "A" (P-1 to B-2) and "B" (P-1 to I-1). The vote was 9-0 in
favor of the motion. A second motion to amend the findings of fact in FRDO
Report #KZC-95-01, and forward a negative recommendation to City Council to deny
the zone change request from B-2 to P-1 passed on a 6-3 vote. As a Board, we
support and have supported the Airport Neighborhood Plan, including the Runway
Protection Zone, and encourage resolution of this conflict.
The amended findings are as follows:
Would the Proposed Zoning Conserve the Value of the Buildings?
It is inappropriate to zone as a public zone land which is not in public
ownership. Although the existing buildings located on the properties are
permitted to continue as to their existing uses, the value of the land and
the buildings would have significant negative impact until the property is
in public ownership. As a Board, we support and have supported the
Airport Neighborhood Plan, including the Runway Protection Zone, and
encourage resolution of this conflict.
This recommendation is forwarded to your Board for final action on the petition
for a zone change. Council needs to wait for the minutes of the Planning Board
meeting prior to final action on this case. However, this does not preclude
discussion at Council workshop.
If you have any questions, please contact this Commission or the FRDO.
Respectfully submitted,
KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING COMMISSION
Therese Fox Hash
President
TFH/JJP/eo
Attachments: FRDO Report #KZC-95-01
Application Materials
F:\FRDO\TRANSMIT\KALISPEL\KZC95-01-P-1
CITY ZONE CHANCE REQUEST
CITY OF KALISPELL
FRDO STAFF REPORT #KZC-95-01
FEBRUARY 5, 1995
The City of Kalispell has initiated an amendment to the Official Zoning Map of the City of
Kalispell. The City is requesting three changes to zones on and in the area of the Municipal
Airport. They are:
Change "A" from P-1 to B-2
Change "B" from P-1 to 1-1
Change "C' from B-2 to P-1
The zone change request is subject to a public hearing before the Kalispell City -County
Planning Board and Zoning Commission on February 14,1995. A recommendation from that
body will be forwarded to the Kalispell City Council for final action.
The intent of the P-1, B-2, and 1-1 zoning classifications are defined by the Kalispell Zoning
Ordinance as:
P-1 A public district to provide and reserve areas for public uses in order
to preserve and provide adequate land for a variety of community
facilities which serve the public and general welfare. Such public uses
would include schools, public buildings, parks, and open spaces, etc.
B-2 A business district to provide areas for those retail sales and service
functions and businesses whose operations are typically characterized
by outdoor display, storage and/or sale of merchandise, by major
repair of motor vehicles, and by outdoor commercial amusement and
recreational activities. This district would also serve the general needs
of the tourist and traveler.
1-1 An industrial district to provide areas for those light industrial uses
that typically do not create objectionable characteristics (such as dirt,
noise, glare, heat, odor, smoke, etc.) which extend beyond the lot
lines. Such light industrial uses would include light manufacturing,
processing, fabrication, and assembling of products or materials,
warehousing and storage and transportation facilities. This district is
also intend to accommodate various adult -type uses that may
otherwise infringe or negatively influence the residential or
commercial character of other zoning districts.
This district depends on the proximity to major streets and arterials.
This district should be located in business corridors or in islands.
II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
PETITIONER:
City of Kalispell
312-1st Avenue East
Kalispell, MT 59901
Change "A" is located generally south of the National Guard Armory on the west side of US
Highway 93 and contains approximately 10 acres. Change "B" Is generally located north of
the sewage treatment plant access road on the east side of Airport Road and contains
approximately 25 acres. change "C" is located on the northeast and northwest corners of
Airport Road and 18th Street West and contain a total of approximately 2.2 acres.
Changes "A" and "B" are currently zoned P-1 (Public); "A" contains the ball fields and "B"
contains airport uses, forest service offices, and other non-residential uses. Change "C"
contains a residence on the northeast corner and is vacant on the northwest corner. The
area around the airport contains a variety of zones including R-4, R-1, B-2, P-1, and 1-1 and
contain a variety of residential, commercial, airport, public, and industrial uses.
The statutory procedure for evaluating zone changes is set forth by 76-2303, M.C.A.
Findings of Fact for the zone change request are discussed relative to the criteria described
by 76-2-304, M.C.A.
Does The Requested Zone Comply With The master Plan?
The subject property is within the jurisdiction of the Kalispell City -County Master Plan and
Airport Neighborhood Plan. According to the master plan, change "A" is designated for
commercial use, change B is designated for light industrial, and change "C" is designated
as the "Airport Protection Zone". Therefore, the proposed zoning classifications are in
conformance with the Master Plan.
Will The Requested Zone Secure Safety From Fire, Panic And Other Dangers?
Development within the requested zones are subject to certain standards including
maximum building height and the provision of off-street parking. Further, any
development of the property is subject to review by the City's Site Plan Review Committee,
and requires the Issuance of city building, plumbing, and mechanical permits. These
requirements and review processes help ensure that development of the property
subsequent to the zone change is done in a safe manner. In addition, the zones are
anticipated in this general location as stated in the master plan.
Will The Requested Change Promote The Health And General Welfare?
The general purpose of the City's zoning ordinance is to promote the general health and
welfare and does so by implementing the city/County Master Plan. The Master Plan
P�
supports the requested zone changes. The changes would not intrude on the health or
general welfare of this particular neighborhood. The surrounding uses are compatible with
the proposed zoning classification and are anticipated under the Master Plan.
Will The Requested Zone Provide For Adequate Light And Air?
The landscape, open space, building setbacks, parking, etc. requirements of the zoning
ordinance should ensure that light and air are adequately provided.
Will The Reauested Zone Change Prevent The Overcrowding -Of Land?
Overcrowding of land can occur when development out -paces or exceeds the
environmental or service limitations of the property. Adequate infrastructure is in place
to accommodate the land uses allowed in the requested zone.
Will The Requested Zone Avoid Undue Concentration Of People?
Concentration of people is a function of land use. Re -development will certainly occur on
this site if the zone changes are approved. The uses associated with the new zoning
designations anticipate a certain concentration of people and should not create a undue
hardship on the neighborhood.
Will The Requested Zone Facilitate The Adequate Provision Of Transportation, Water, Sewer,
Schools Parks And Other Public Requirements?
The additional demands for transportation, water or sewer collection will be evaluated
pursuant to individual development proposals. Because the zoning, both existing and
proposed, is nonresidential, schools and parks should not be impacted.
Does The Requested Zone Give Consideration To The Particular Suitability Of The Property
For Particular Uses?
The use that currently occupies site "C" is not appropriate for the end of an airport runway
and the intensity of the possible uses allowed in the B-2 zone are also not conducive to
development at the end of the runway. The Runway Protection Zone would only allow the
least intensive uses to avoid conflicts between overflights and the uses contained
thereunder. The Master Plan indicates the RPZ "...is to enhance the protection of people
and property on the ground. ...This zone should be clear of all objects...".
The requested zones and respective uses are well suited for the areas contained under the
request.
Does The Requested Zoning Give Reasonable Consideration To The Character of This District?
The property under consideration in this proposal fits the character of the neighborhood.
The existing adjoining and surrounding neighborhood is comprised of a variety of
commercial, recreational, industrial and residential uses and should acquainted with the
impacts of those types of uses. The requested zone change is not out of character with the
surrounding city scape.
Would The Proposed Zoning Conserve The Value Of The Buildings?
The existing buildings located on the properties are permitted to continue as to there
existing uses. Therefore, the value of the buildings should not be Impacted In either case.
Will The Requested Zone Change Encourage The Most Appropriate Use Of The Land
Throughout The Jurisdiction?
The requested zoning classification Is consistent with the Kalispell city -County Master Plan.
The Plan specifically Identifies this area for airport uses. The jurisdiction consists of
recreational, residential, commercial, and industrial uses. The proposed zone change would
be the most appropriate use of the land.
it is recommended that the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission
adopt this staff report as findings of fact and forward a recommendation to City Council
for approval of the requested zone change.
... \KZC95-Ol.P-1
CI
E113"
�s
City of Kalispell
Zone Change Application
A. The proposed changes directly promote the Master Plan, as they are
being used as tools of implementing the goals and objectives of the
Kalispell City Airport Neighborhood Plan, which is an Amendment to
the City -County Master Plan.
11 This objective will be met by permitting appropriate land uses in
appropriate locations. The rezoning to P-1, and the ultimate public
ownership, of the property in the "Runway Protection Zone (RPZ)" will
result in reduced traffic in the immediate vicinity. By zoning the
property adjacent to Highway 93 to a commercial designation, traffic
will utilize an existing major arterial and its associated system of
collectors. The land uses permitted in the proposed I-1 are generally
not generators of high traffic volumes, but do need access to major
arterials. The proposal offers such land uses easy access to the Airport
and Highway 93. None of the proposed changes should result in
increased congestion in the streets. Safe access is assured through City
site review and the MDOT approach -permit process.
C. The restrictive nature of the P-1 district, in terms of permitted land
uses, and the FAA restrictions applicable to the RPZ, enhance the safety
of the City Airport and its environs. Similarly, properly zoning to
commercial and industrial, those lands adjacent to the runway, will
guide appropriate land uses to appropriate locations as described above.
D. The proposed changes in zoning will meet all of these objectives -
objectives which are integral to the Airport Neighborhood Plan.
Encouraging proper development in the vicinity of the airport will
promote the general welfare by enhancing airport safety and directing
development to areas capable of absorbing the associated impacts.
E. The P-1, I-1, and B-2 zone districts all contain development standards
which ensure adequate light and air - setbacks, height limits, lot
coverage maximums, etc. Furthermore, land uses and building heights
are guided by FAA Standards in the vicinity of the airport.
Page 2 - EXHIBIT "3"
City of Kalispell Zone Change Application
F. Residential uses are not permitted in the proposed zones, so from a
"population" perspective, overcrowding will not occur. Occupancy and
use of commercial and Industrial structures are regulated by both the
Kalispell Zoning Ordinance and the Uniform Building Code to avoid
unsafe conditions.
G. Refer to "F' above.
H. The proposed changes will result in enhanced airport safety; city
utilities are readily available on the developable parcels; schools will not
be impacted, as residential uses are not permitted; and the proposed P-
1 district will make available the opportunity to pursue parks and/or
other public facilities.
I. The City has made a commitment, by adopting the Neighborhood Plan,
to see that the existing airport and surrounding neighborhood be
preserved and enhanced. The commercial character of the highway
frontage will be consistent with existing development in the area, as
will the industrial district planned West of the runway and North of the
Sewage Treatment Plant.
J. The conclusion of the adopted neighborhood plan was that the subject
properties were indeed suitable for the proposed zones and the
permitted uses contained therein.
K. The City Airport and the associated buildings and improvements
represent significant investment. The zone changes will assist in
preserving that investment.
L. With the safety of the Airport and immediate vicinity a major objective
of this request, orderly growth and appropriate land uses are not only
encouraged, but required.
=.. ,•r®sa ': � �� j, ; ♦„�i1, s � "f.v�} ..r • .^ 'yt l ate'•• �'�i T • I � —
P , egg
• i, f. .M, ✓ . � ._. s rite ® ! t .� �•
age
,a
-.ca•ry m
.<ai... IS
nCr •mn * /
i r
11 1®i \\ Fes' •M'••� ®® �� �_:�.�...—... ..'
♦ ,� a `_ i
r `viv cz MAN
xt ea.l
BEGG
VA- 4w
PAR'( muss
ASHLEY a
PARKCOUNW
SAG- 10
0
-
rr. EXHIBIT "Bi,
R 5-
NI
SAG-
.EI... iYII.• r.A, c� � ,� �,
i
19 20
r� �_ ,_..
600Ti'
< 1 .<• SEE G'--
KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING COMMISSION
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
1
PLAT Addition. The site will be developed with City services and have
rail-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 manac,a,r. After
he bought the property, he was told by Parsons that much more
would be required. He planned to put in 28 feet paved roo,U
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 hei;ht
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 peoplE
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 appr:)vt�l, 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 �Iio o_ be a
50 foot riparian setback maintained with undisturbed native
vegetation, and wanted this added as condition #15. Carver a5knd
if this was a county or city regulation? This requir01,:.fit 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 tlii; 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 floc dll!;J it i�
not a good idea, even though fill can be hauled in to raise the
level. Wood pointed out that it is common practice to allO
construction in the floodplain, which is differentiated from the
floodway. There are different standards that nP.,-.1 to be 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 just
waiting for the next event to happen to see who is going to get
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 buildirtt,- 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 re(2ulations for riparian zones." Lopp seconded. On a
roll call vote DeGrosky, Hodgebootit, K: ���::>tly, Lopp, Sanders,
t Fraser, Bahr, a:, l it:ish voi,�d 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 Lonepine View
PHASE 2 / T st,itcs Subdivision Phase 2. Phase 2 includes 11 lots for single
PRELIMINARY family/duplex residential development zonetl Cminiy 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 Esi.at.es 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 15 conditions attached.
Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to all those in favor of the
project.
In Favor Thor Jackola, engineer repr4:sit oimtive 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 condititt+c:; (if
approval for the first phase will be carried 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 conc:errted with the
drainage. He wanted provisions to be made so that the water
does not fill his basement. This year t.hc,ro 1,,is 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 basement.
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 on the schools,
increased noise level, and impact on Ashley Creek. All the traffic
frour this project will feed directly onto Sunnyside Drive ;k11)ic.1► is
at that point out of city limits and a haven for pedestrian, cycler,
joggers, etc. Everyone from families with small cliddre.=i 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 Sunnyside/Vail .y Vicr%.
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 area is Peterson, which according to
District 5 is "a very full school". As a substitute teacher, I sc!e
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 rnrw, nremenis and I'm concerned
about the proximity of Ashley Creek and the possible impact on
the creek environment. According to the Flathead Conserv.tion
District the road needs to be a minimum of 50 feet from the creek,
with a wide vegetation barrier to deal with runoff from th,
impervious surface. This along with other conditions that need to
be met with the required permit from the Conservation District
concern me as to whether the integrity of the fragile crook
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 inhabilait!s vital to this area. I
am opposed to approval of this project as I feel the it :;,aet.s are
not in the best interests of the neighborhood and extended
envir:+rrnent.
James Battee, Sunnyside Drive, " I reside on Sunnyside Drive and
am writbig ir, regard to the Lone Pine View subdivision proposed
south and west of where Ashley Creek crosses Sunnyside. I have
1 a number of concerns about the impact this concentrated
development will have on this area. Sunnyside and Valley View
Drive loop into Foys Lake Road. This route is used by walkers,
joggers, bicyclists, cross country runnr,rs from 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 tall, 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 previ(ois
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 Cil,� Arid
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 suhrlivi ,iron.
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 quality of the
proposal. If a development proposes sidewalks, the conditions are
going to he 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 apprt,vral of the plat for
Lonepine View Estates subject to the 15 conditions attached, with
the following amendments: Condition #13 shall conform to City
standards, instead of County, and add condition #16: "All areas
disturbed during development of the subdivision shall be
reveg-etated in accordance with a plan approved by the Flathead
County Weed Control Board. Any disturbances within the
floodplain area of Ashley Creek shall be revegetated immediately."
Fraser seconded. On a roll call vote Sanders, Kennedy, Bahr,
Hodgeboom, Fraser and Hash voted aye. DeGrosky, Carlson and
Lopp voted no. The motion carried on a e-3 vote.
DeGrosky explained is negative vote for the record. He felt it was
a well designed project, but he had concern over the
6
inconstinency in the requirement for street li; hts for Belmar
Addition and not for this one.
GLACIER The next item was a request by George Schulze and Duane Bitney
VILLAGE for preliminary plat approval of Glacier Village Greens Phases VII
GREENS - and VTII. 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 11w }2 of Section 32, T29N, R21W,
P.M.M., Flathead County.
Staff Report Parsons presented report #FP11-05--01. Rased on the evaluation in
accordance with the necessary criteria for review of a preliminary
plat, Ataff 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 t}rc
applicants, stated that this is a continuation of a development that
has been ongoing for the past 6-7 years. He said that Duane
Ritney was not able to attend this meeting, and he was available
for questions. He had questions regarding a couple of conditini r-
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, amc,i.trlrlg
to a total. 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 bearing, Aas closed and it
was opened up for Board discussion.
Discussion The conditions of approval are 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 of
been developed, and when it is srtpposed 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 #9, if left as stated, they will take it up with
the Commissioners. Lopp complimented the developer on put ! inw;
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 VIII 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 Rlock
1, Lots 4 and 5, Block 2, Lots 1 and 2 in the NW4 of Secl i�an 33,
T29N, R21W, P.M.M., Flathead County.
Staff Report
Parsons gave a detailed overview of report. ##FPP-90-03. 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 tiara : opened to proponents of the project.
In Favor Warren McConkey, General Manager for Flathead Electric Co-op,
spoke, a.; 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 front.aoe.
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 definitf-.l�- ti-x in to set
i 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 be very high in relation to the burden placed on the
community, because it does not greatly impact the sebools siirti as
a high traffic residential type development would. Rail access is
8
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 quite elderly. The
owners did not want to sell their property and move to an
unfamiliar home at their age. Tt 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, relativc to
Terry Road. They acknowledge that Terry Road is in poor
condition, but think that since it is a county road, that iit all
fairne,- , tlii 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 reali:,tic-,
that there are other developments that are or will be occurring
in the Terry Road area, or just south on Judith Ro -.d. We know
that there is at. b >ist. one 3-lot development currently under
consideration that will generate a lot rnt trit, 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 de.qin
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 some:
language for the conditions which were questioned. Conditio�-k #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 DOW, it says
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 will 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
9
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 th:fl
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 ti-me `!iey 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 feet
of Flathead Electric's land, should Flathead Electric Coo} p u f
curbs and gutters across the street for their neighbors to the
south. If there is a RSID or a curb, gutkuu,I sidewalk system
that should go tt--rou h 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 48. Those encroachments can be defined in the covenants.
There were no further speakers in favor of the proposal. No one
spoke in opposition. The public hearing was closed and it was
turned over to Board discussion.
Discussion The curbs and gutters issue was addressed. Parsons su ;vested
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 AASHTO
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 #5 was
amended to insert "...from Highway 2 to Cooperative. Way" and to
10
delete the reference to etjrl... By consensus,
Condition #5 was amended to read:
5. Terry Road be reconstructed or brought up to AASHTO 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 having been done.
Parsons suggested language for an additional condition to read:
Combine Lots 8 and 9 into a single 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 Lots 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 subject to the conditions
as amended with the addition of #17 as stated. Lopp seconded.
On a roll call vote Bahr, Lopp, Sanders, Carlson, Hodgeboom,
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 1-1
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 oia 11w .%;est side of
"A" P-1 TO B-2
US Highway 93 south of the National Guard Armory and is known
"B" P-1 TO I-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 woulcl 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 Road 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 4KZC-95-01. Based on the Kalispell City -
County Mastev ^i�:; to be amended to adopt the Kalispell Airport
Neighborhood Plan, the requested zone changes are in compliance
with the designation in the Master Plan. Based on evaluation of
the statutory criteria for zone changes, staff recommended
approval of the requests. No letters were received red irding this
matter.
11
Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of any one of
the requested gone changes, either "A", B , or C .
No one spoke in favor of the City requested zone changi-s.
Opposition Mack Beaver, 1820 Airport Road, said that .his family own_,, 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 pruf)erty
and should be subject to Montana Code 70 Chapter 30, under
Eminent Domain. Under MCA 70-30-111 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.
Tiuinireck's property, as well.
No one else spoke in opposition. The public hearing was closed,
and the mcMing 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 protectio,, 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 Attor)tey?
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 Timmreck 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 gentleman
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.
3
DeGrosky replied that in the meantime the city is wNkin—e- 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 arn;ind 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 riot know that it was in the
runway protection area., because of the current zoning. If it is
zoned P-1, then they will know that they cant-.ot build on the
property.
DeGrosky said that it all makes good sense, but his concern is
what if the City and Mr. Beaver 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. Thaa h;-. i -uld
not change the use now under the existing B-2 zone. because of
the runway protection zone.
Fraser pointed out that Mr. Beaver could u:�i los 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 zo,iing 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,
that is essentially defacto rezoning, also.
DeGrosky said he shared Fraser's concern, thal hi- has a hard
time regardless of the good intentions and the good public
benefits of the runway protection zone, which I support fully. I
:;tst have a hard time signing on to something which I know is
potentially illegal.
Kennedy did not agree that this was illegal.
Parsons suggested that the staff recommendations be spp;.i,-ated
out as "A", "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 Mr.
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 cite
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 A ill support st— iraling "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. fie
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 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, Lopp and Hash voted in favor. The motion carried 9-0
to recommend approval of zone change requests "A" (P-1 to B-2)
and "B" (P-1 to I-1).
Discussion resumed relative to change "C" (B-2 to P-1). Parsons
outlined the options. The Board must act on the request, !;ecause
it is an active application and the applicant is not willing to
withdraw it at thhis flme.
Motion DeGrosky moved to recommend denial of zui, • change- "C".
Motion Kennedy wanted to zone the property appropriately so that future
potential buyers of these properties would know that it is in the
runway protection zone. Kennedy moved to forward a fav-orahle
recommendation to city council to grant the zone chance from B-2
to P-1.
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
alto,-, tin, 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 BuildinLrs?
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 recommend that until it is
in public ownership it not be zoned as public pr--) erty.
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 i,
cannot deal with, but the city can. He would like to send it on
to council with a recommendation that they deal with it.
Lapp 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 firidh—q�:
Would the Proposed Zoning Conserve the Value of the Builclin----;'
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 rtsc.()mm1--iid that until it is
in public ownership it not be zoned as public p, •.:pe:rt.y.
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 6-3 vote to recommend 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 wa.s oo 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 #KZTA-94-07] 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 Hearing The public hearing was opened. No one spoke either in favor or
in opposition to the requested zoning text amendment. The pubii�,
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 it as
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.
Motion Carlson moved to adopt report #KZTA-95-01 (correct report number
#KZTA94-071 as findings of fact to propose to City Cc,urif-il to
amend the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance Chapter 27.25, Section
27.25.010 and 27.25.045. Bahr seconded. On a roil trill 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 h,)spihil
PUD will be before the Baal d 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.
Parsers said he 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
he 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.
7 1�
U
Therese Fox Hash, President
APPROVED: n !1 1 } Ac+���
bah Ontko, Recording Secretary
17