10. Resolution 4202 - Belmar - AnnexationRESOLUTION NO. 4202
A RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE FOR THE ALTERATION OF THE BOUNDARIES OF THE
CITY OF KALISPELL BY INCLUDING THEREIN, AS AN ANNEXATION, A TRACT
OF LAND DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A", TO BE KNOWN AS BELMAR ADDITION
NO. 261; TO ZONE SAID PROPERTY TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, R-4, TO
AMEND THE CITY ZONING MAP ACCORDINGLY AND TO DECLARE AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Kalispell has received a petition from
Somers Land Company and Lindlief Enterprises, the owners of the
property described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and thereby made
a part hereof, requesting that the City of Kalispell annex the
territory into the City, and
WHEREAS, the Flathead Regional Development Office has made a
report on Belmar Addition No. 261, City Zone Request, KA-94-5,
dated June 27, 1994, and
WHEREAS, the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning
Commission recommended that the territory be annexed into the City
of Kalispell and be zoned Two Family Residential, R-4, and
WHEREAS, based upon the report of the Flathead Regional
Development Office and the recommendation of the Kalispell City -
County Planning Board and Zoning Commission, the City Council of
the City of Kalispell finds that the recommended zoning
classification for the territory is appropriate based upon the
following criterion:
Does the Requested Zone Comply with the Master Plan?
The subject property is within the jurisdiction of the
Kalispell City -County Master Plan. According to the map
of the Master Plan, the property is currently designated
"Urban Residential", with a maximum density of 8 dwelling
units per acre. R-4 is considered in compliance with the
Master Plan.
Does the Requested Zone Lessen Congestion in the Streets?
Congestion in the streets is caused by an overburden of
traffic on the street system. The zone in this case
would not cause undue congestion because traffic
generation is a function of the number of dwelling units
that are allowed within a given area. The property will
be subdivided in a manner which precludes any further
subdivisions and the density of this development is
expected for this area. No additional traffic would be
generated by this zoning designation.
1
Will the Requested Zone Secure Safety from Fire, Panic
and Other Dangers?
Development within this zone is subject to development
standards including: lot coverage, 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 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.
A portion of the property is currently in the 100 year
floodplain. Structural development within the floodplain
is not permitted; the portion of the property within the
floodplain would need to be brought out of the floodplain
prior to any structural development on that portion of
the property. No significant negative impact is
expected.
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 City -
County Master Plan would support the requested zone
change. Designation of this area as R-4 would serve the
Flathead region with additional residential development.
Any traffic generation that the proposed change allows
would be mitigated at the time of development. In
addition, this area has direct access to an existing
major arterial which would have access to the Alternate
Highway 93 route. Any impact to stormwater runoff,
sewers, and water would be addressed at the time of
development proposals.
The zoning ordinance provides a mechanism for public
input and review for all zone change requests. This
process offers an opportunity to ensure that any changes
to the Official Zoning Map are done in the general public
interest. Additionally, other review mechanisms are in
place to ensure that development is in compliance with
all applicable safety codes. No significant negative
impact is expected.
Will the Requested Zone Provide for Adequate Light and
Air?
The development standards of the zoning ordinance and
subdivision regulations (i.e.: parking, landscaping,
F
clear vision setback, roadway improvements) would ensure
that light and air are adequately provided.
Will the Requested Zone Change Prevent the Overcrowding
of Land?
Overcrowding of land occurs when development out -paces or
exceeds the environmental or service limitations of the
property. The Subdivision and Zoning Regulations control
the intensity requirements that a property can be
developed with. Adequate infrastructure is in place or
can be provided at the time of development to accommodate
the land uses allowed in the requested zone. No
significant negative impact is expected.
Will the Requested Zone Avoid Undue Concentration of
People?
Concentration of people relates to the land use permitted
by a particular zone. The proposed zone change would
increase residential density in the area. Infrastructure
exists or can be provided which supports the proposed
change. The zoning ordinance covers the intensity of use
that would be permitted in this zone. An undue
concentration of people would result if the property is
developed at a level which exceeds the environmental or
service carrying capacity of the land which would not
happen. The proposed zoning will insure that the site is
properly developed. No significant negative impact is
expected.
Will the Requested Zone Facilitate the Adequate Provision
of Transportation, Water, Sewer, Schools, Parks and Other
Public Requirements?
The additional demands for transportation, water, and
sewer will be evaluated pursuant to individual
development proposals; existing infrastructure exists in
the vicinity which should be able to serve development of
this property. Because of the types of uses permitted in
the zone, schools and parks should not be significantly
impacted. However, schools are considered to be at
capacity and additional development in Flathead County
puts additional strain on the school system. No
significant negative impact is expected.
Does the Requested Zone Give Consideration to the
Particular Suitability of the Property for Particular
Uses?
The subject property is well suited for uses permitted
within the R-4 zone. The property is of adequate size
3
and has adequate access to facilities for the type of
uses permitted in the proposed zone. No significant
negative impact is expected.
Does the Requested Zoning Give Reasonable Consideration
to the Character of this District?
The properties in question are well suited for the type
development anticipated under the requested zone because
of the topography, access, regional location, and size of
the proposal. No significant negative impact is
expected.
Would the Proposed Zoning Conserve the Value of the
Buildings?
The subject request would not significantly impact
buildings. There are no known uses that would be
affected by this zone. A change from County R-1 to the
City R-4 zone will not significantly impact, erode, or
devalue the neighborhood beyond the type of uses that are
currently allowed or that exist in the area. No
significant negative impact is expected.
Will the Requested Zone Change Encourage the Most
Appropriate Use of the Land Throughout the Jurisdiction?
The requested zoning classification would be consistent
with the Kalispell City -County Master Plan. The Plan and
the existing permitted uses under the zoning ordinance
generally identify this area for residential uses. The
change would encourage the most appropriate use of the
land. No significant negative impact is expected.
WHEREAS, on the 3rd day of April, 1989 the City Council of the
City of Kalispell adopted, pursuant to Section 7-2-4610, Montana
Code Annotated, an Extension of Services Plan which anticipates
development of City services for approximately five years in the
future, and
WHEREAS, the City has caused to be developed a "mini -extension
of services plan", attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and thereby made
a part hereof, for the territory by this Resolution annexed to the
City of Kalispell, and
WHEREAS, said "mini -extension of services plan" provides for
the extension of municipal services or maintenance of existing
services within the area of Belmar Addition No. 261, subject to
annexation, including water, sewer, storm drainage, streets,
garbage collection, police protection and fire protection, and
k
J
4
WHEREAS, said "mini -extension of services plan" provides for
financing the extension of municipal services or maintenance of
existing services by utilizing funds allocated and expended,
pursuant to the annual City budget without incurring additional
bonded indebtedness, and
WHEREAS, Belmar Addition No. 261 is included within and
conforms to the Kalispell City -County Master Plan, and
WHEREAS, the City of Kalispell desires to annex said property
in accordance with Title 7, Chapter 2, Part 46, Montana Code
Annotated.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF KALISPELL AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I . That all the real property as is more
particularly described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto
and thereby made a part hereof, shall be annexed to the
City of Kalispell and the boundary of the City is altered
to so provide.
SECTION II. Upon the effective date of this Resolution,
the City Clerk of Council is directed to make and
certify, under the seal of the City a copy of the record
of these proceedings as are entered on the minutes of the
7 City Council and file said documents with the Flathead
County Clerk and Recorder.
From and after the date of filing of said documents as
prepared by the City Clerk of Council, or on the
effective date hereof whichever shall occur later, said
annexed territory is part of the City of Kalispell and
its citizens and property shall be subject to all debts,
laws and ordinances and regulations in force in the City
of Kalispell and shall be entitled to the same privileges
and benefits as are other parts of the City.
SECTION III. The territory annexed by this Resolution
shall be zoned Two Family Residential, R-4.
SECTION IV. This Resolution shall be effective 30 days
from and after its passage by the City Council.
5
EXHIBIT A
A tract of land located in the North Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 19,
Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana, more
particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the Southwest corner of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast
Quarter of Section 19, Township 28 North, Range 21 West; thence
South 88°16'25" West along the South boundary of the Northwest Quarter of the
Northeast Quarter of said Section 19 a distance of 204.94 feet to a point; thence
North 00009'15" West and ieaving said South boundary a distance of 500.62 feet to
a point on the approximate thread of Ashley Creek; thence the following three (3)
courses along the said approximate thread:
North 76058'16" East a distance of 40.41 feet;
North 53001'22" East a distance of 55.83 feet;
North 33°33'22" East a distance of 15.02 feet; thence leaving said thread
North 89052'45" East a distance of 112.38 feet to a point on the West boundary of
the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 19; thence
North 89052'45" East a distance of 362.33 feet to a point; thence
South 00()09'00" East a distance of 540.10 feet to a point on the South boundary of
the said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence
South 88°19'53" West and along said South boundary a distance of 362.35 feet to
the place of beginning.
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
R
Douglas D. Rauthe, Mayor
EXHIBIT "B"
BELMAR ADDITION ANNEXATION
EXTENSION OF SERVICES PLAN
ADDENDUM TO CITY RESOLUTION J3838
PREPARED BY THE FRDO
FEBRUARY 6, 1995
The subject property is within the Service Area Boundary of the City of Kalispell as
described by the Extension of Services Plan adopted by the City of Kalispell on April
3, 1989 (Resolution 13838). This broad -based extension of services plan, together
with this "mini -plan" comprise the Extension of Services Plan for Dennis Carvers,
Belmar Addition, annexation.
EXISTING SERVICES:
Water. A municipal water line will need to be extended to serve this property. The
City has sufficient capacity to serve this site when the extension is made.
Sewer: A lift station and sanitary sewer will need to be extended to service this
property. The City has sufficient capacity to.service this property when extensions
are made.
Storm Drainage: Storm drainage is proposed to outlet Into Ashley Creek north of
the property.
Streets: Airport Road Is a two lane paved collector with sufficient capacity to serve
South Meadows and this site.
Garbage Collection: Available by contract from private companies.
Police Protection: Currently the Flathead County Sheriff's Department.
Fire Protection: West Valley Volunteer Fire Department,
ANTICIPATED SERVICE NEEDS:
Water: Water supply would be able to be extended to the property from the
water line north in Airport Road through the South Meadows Subdivision. if not,
a water main must be extended to connect with a main of sufficient capacity to
serve this property. Capacity and any extensions would be evaluated at the review
stage of any development permit.
Sewer: Sewer would be collected in a conventional gravity flow system which
would feed into a lift station which would feed into the City's sewerage disposal
plant east of the site. This disposal system would be evaluated during the review
phase of any development permit.
storm Drainage: on -site retention and/or disposal of storm water will be evaluated
during the review phase of any proposed development. it is anticipated to drain
into Ashley Creek.
streets: Airport Road is a two lane paved collector with sufficient capacity to serve
this site through South Meadows. In addition, street tree planting and sidewalks
would be necessary.
Garbage Collection: The City has the capacity and equipment to handle the needs
of this site at the time it becomes eligible for municipal service.
Police/Fire: City of Kalispell Police Department and Fire Department will be available
to serve the tract upon annexation. They will be able to provide "service" to this
property on the substantially same basis and in the same manner in which this
service is currently provided to the rest of the municipality.
EXTENSION AND FINANCE STRATEGIES:
The cost of extending such public services as police and fire protection are
expected to be negligible until such time as the property is developed. The
general source of money to extend these type of services is from the general tax
revenues received from this property and other properties inside the City limits.
Individual improvements to the property, including the paving of streets, the
extension of the water line, sewer line, and stormwater management
improvements will be the responsibility of the developer/landowner. Any area -
wide improvements relative to a comprehensive storm drainage system will be
financed in part by the residents of the entire municipality and in part by special
assessments for that purpose.
FA ... \KA95-1 ES.CVR
7
jJA
IL
1p
lor
• •• i • 1•'•>R .•.• _ ... • sue► I '• • 4 i
dC
Ir
s • ` ~ �^"�; - 1v It
$.. •.'>v' !'
�•.. t ., .�•.�� 1 •( awr N .18: �'' ..� •' 0. •at. •.Nt
CAW
LEN
.• .a r . •1 q ..a41
REF.: �]kiop
95-1
MA Jj
P-1 \
xCOUNTY�`
BEGG •..
SAGA 0
PARK
•� = p 1 I
COUNTYASHLEY
\� PARK
M PH. I --
•"
)SAG-1 1
• - - - - *+";lgl sag g 1-•c-
Flathead Rebional Development Cuff ee
723 5th Avenue East - Room 414
Kalispell, Montana 59901
Phone: (406) 758-5780
February 23, 1995 Fax: (406) 758-5781
Bruce Williams, City Manager
City of Kalispell
P.O. Drawer 1997
Kalispell, MT 59901
Re: Recommendation of Zoning for Belmar Addition No. 261
Dear Bruce:
The Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission met on February
14, 1995, and held a public hearing on the following agenda item:
A request by Dennis Carver for annexation to the City of Kalispell with an
initial zoning classification of R-4 (Two Family Residential). The parcel
contains approximately 7 acres located north of South Meadows Subdivision,
and is currently zoned County R-1 Residential. The site will access
Bluestone Drive through Lot 57 of South Meadows. It will be known as
Belmar Addition. It is further described as Assessor's Tract 14CA and part
of Tract 1K, in the NE4 of Section 19, Township 28 North, Range 21 West,
1
P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana.
I
During the public hearing, no one spoke either in favor of or in opposition to the
requested zoning classification. The Board questioned whether the property
owner on the corner had been contacted to voluntarily annex. Staff replied that
it was essentially an island and the City could initiate annexation. By unanimous
vote, the Commission adopted FRDO Report #KA-95-1 as findings of fact, and
recommend to the City Council that the subject property be zoned R-4 upon
annexation into the City of Kalispell.
This recommendation for zoning is forwarded to the City Council for a subsequent
public hearing and final action. Council needs to wait for the minutes of the
Planning Board meeting prior to taking final action on this matter. However, this
does not preclude discussion at Council workshop. Please contact the Commission
or the FRDO if you have any questions.
Respectfully submitted,
KA ISPtELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING COMMISSION
Therese Fox Hash
President
TFH/JPP/eo
Attachments: FRDO Report #KA-95-1 & Packet
I c: Mayor Doug Rauthe c w/o Att: Dennis Carver
F:\...\TRAN S MIT\KALI S P EL\KA-95-1.261
Providing Community Planning Assistance To:
* Flathead Countv * City of Columbia Falls * City of Kalispell * City of Whitefish
BELMAR
ADDITION
,,! #
. 261 - CITY ZONE REQUEST
! TO
FRDO CITY ZONE# t
-Awe-"
•�
Dennis Carver has petitioned the" City of Kalispell for annexation of a tract of land
into the city limits of Kalispell. This report evaluates the annexation relative to the
assignment of a City zoning classification in accordance with Section 27.03.010(4)
of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance.
The applicant has petitioned for a zoning classification of R-4 (Two Family
Residential). Presently, the property is zoned County R-1 Residential, under the
Flathead County Zoning Regulations. The Kalispell Zoning Ordinance defines the
intent of the R-4 Classification as follows:
Aresidential district with minimum lot areas. Development within this
district will require all public utilities and all community facilities. Two
family dwellings are permitted in this district.
PETITIONER:
Dennis Carver
1995 - 3rd Ave East
Kalispell, MT 59901
SIZE AND LOCATION:
The property is approximately 7 acres located south of Kalispell,1300 feet west of
Airport Road and north of South Meadows Subdivision. This site is described as
Assessors Tract 14CA and part of Tract 1K, In the NE 1/4, of Section 19, T28N, R21W,
P.M.M., Flathead County.
GENERAL LAND USE CHARACTER:
The property consists of a single parcel of land and a portion of another; both are
currently used for pasture. South (zoned City R-4) is being• developed as South
Meadows Subdivision; east (zoned County R-1) is pasture; to the north (zoned
County R-1) is pasture; and to the west (zoned County R-1) is pasture. Airport Road
Is a paved two Kane road which provides access to South Meadows, which in turn
supplies access to the site.
0
AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC SERVICES:
City water and sewer services are available in the area. A separately prepared
"Extension of Services Plan" discusses the provision of public services to this
property.
EVALUATION BASED ON STATUTORY CRITERIA
The statutory procedure for evaluating zone changes is set forth by 76-2-303, 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. According to the map of the master plan, the property is currently
designated "Urban Residential", with a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per
acre. R-4 is considered in compliance with the Master Plan.
Does The Requested Zone Lessen Congestion in the Streets?
Congestion In the streets is caused by an overburden of traffic on the street
system. The zone in this case would not cause undue congestion because traffic
generation is a function of the number of dwelling units that are allowed within
a given area. The property will be subdivided in a manner which precludes any
further subdivisions and the density of this development is expected for this area.
No additional traffic would be generated by this zoning designation.
Will The Requested Zone Secure safety From Fire, Panic And Other Dangers?
Development within this zone Is subject to development standards including: lot
coverage, 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 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. A portion of the property Is currently In the 100 year floodpiain.
Structural development within the floodpiain is not permitted; the portion of the
property within the floodpiain would need to be brought out of the floodpiain
prior to any structural development on that portion of the property. No
significant negative impact is expected.
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
City -County Master Plan would support the requested zone change. Designation of
this area as R-4 would serve the Flathead region with additional residential
F,
development. Any traffic generation that the proposed change allows would be
mitigated at the time of development. In addition, this area has direct access to
an existing major arterial which would have access to the Alternate Highway 93
route. Any impact to stormwater runoff, sewers, and water would be addressed
at the time of development proposals.
The zoning ordinance provides a mechanism for public input and review for all
zone change requests. This process offers an opportunity to ensure that any
changes to the Official Zoning Map are done in the general public interest.
Additionally, other review mechanisms are In place to ensure that development is
in compliance with all applicable safety codes. No significant negative impact is
expected.
Will The Requested Zone Provide For Adequate Light And Air?
The development standards of the zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations
(Le.: parking, landscaping, clear vision setback, roadway improvements) would
ensure that light and air are adequately provided.
Will The Requested Zone Change Prevent The Overcrowding of Land?
Overcrowding of land occurs when development out -paces or exceeds the
environmental or service limitations of the property. The Subdivision and Zoning
Regulations control the intensity requirements that a property can be developed
with. Adequate infrastructure is in place or can be provided at the time of
development to accommodate the land uses allowed in the requested zone. No
significant negative impact is expected.
Will The Requested Zone Avoid Undue Concentration Of People?
Concentration of people relates to the land use permitted by a particular zone.
The proposed zone change would increase residential density in the area. Infra-
structure exists or can be provided which supports the proposed change. The
zoning ordinance covers the intensity of use that would be permitted in this zone.
An undue concentration of people would result if the property is developed at a
level which exceeds the environmental or service carrying capacity of the land
which would not happen. The proposed zoning will insure that the site is properly
developed. No significant negative impact is expected.
Will The Requested Zone Facilitate The Adequate Provision Of Transportation
Water, Sewer, Schools, Parks And Other Public Requirements?
The additional demands for transportation, water, and sewer will be evaluated
pursuant to individual development proposals; existing infrastructure exists in the
vicinity which should be able to serve development of this property. Because of
the types of uses permitted in the zone, schools and parks should not be
significantly impacted. However, schools are considered to be at capacity and
3
additional development in Flathead County puts additional strain on the school
system. No significant negative impact is expected.
Does The Requested Zone Give Consideration To The Particular Suitability Of The
Property For Particular Uses?
The subject property is well suited for uses permitted within the R-4 zone. The
property is of adequate size and has adequate access to facilities for the type of
uses permitted in the proposed zone. No significant negative impact is expected.
Does The Requested Zoning Give Reasonable Consideration To The Character Of This
Disc
The properties in question are well suited for the type development anticipated
under the requested zone because of the topography, access, regional location,
and size of the proposal. No significant negative impact is expected.
Would The Proposed Zoning Conserve The Value Of The Buildings?
The subject request would not significantly impact buildings. There are no known
uses that would be affected by this zone. A change from County R-1 to the City R-4
zone will not significantly impact, erode, or devalue the neighborhood beyond the
type of uses that are currently allowed or that exist in the area. No significant
negative impact is expected.
Wiil The Requested Zone Change Encourage The Most Appropriate Use Of The Land
Throughout The Jurisdiction?
The requested zoning classification would be consistent with the. Kalispell City -
County Master Plan. The Plan and the existing permitted uses under the zoning
ordinance generally identify this area for residential uses. The change would
encourage the most appropriate use of the land. No significant negative impact
is expected.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION
The property is located in an area that is in a stage of transition; existing and
proposed residential development are planned for the area. This zone change
would facilitate an orderly development of related uses. it is staffs' opinion that
the proposed R-4 zone would serve the needs of the community by allowing
residential development to occur in a manner that is commensurate with the
services available to the area.
it is recommended that the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning
Commission adopt this FRDO staff report as findings of fact and forward a favorable
recommendation to City Council for the requested zone change upon annexation.
FA ... \KA95-1 ES.CVR
j
r 4
A tract of land located in the North Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 19,
Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana, more
particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the Southwest corner of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast
Quarter of Section 19, Township 28 North, Range 21 West; thence
South 88016'25" West along the South boundary of the Northwest Quarter of the
Northeast Quarter of said Section 19 a distance of 204.94 feet to a point; thence
North 00009'15" West and leaving said South boundary a distance of 500.62 feet to
a point on the approximate thread of Ashley Creek; thence the following three (3)
courses along the said approximate thread:
North 76058'16" East a distance of 40.41 feet;
North 53°01'22" East a distance of 55.83 feet;
North 33033-22" East a distance of 15.02 feet; thence leaving said thread
North 89052,45" East a distance of 112.38 feet to a point on the West boundary of
the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 19; thence
North 89052'45" East a distance of 362.33 feet to a point; thence
South 00°09'00" East a distance of 540.10 feet to a point on the South boundary of
the said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence
South 88°19'53" West and along said South boundary a distance of 362.35 feet to
the place of beginning.
BELMAR ADDITION ANNEXATION
EXTENSION OF SERVICES PLAN
ADDENDUM TO CITY RESOLUTION 13838
PREPARED BY THE FRDO
FEBRUARY 6, 1995
The subject property is within the Service Area Boundary of the City of Kalispell as
described by the Extension of Services Plan adopted by the City of Kalispell on April
3, 1989 (Resolution 13838). This broad -based extension of services plan, together
with this "mini -plan" comprise the Extension of Services Plan for Dennis Carver's,
Belmar Addition, annexation.
(EXISTING SERVICES:
Water: A municipal water line will need to be extended to serve this property. The
City has sufficient capacity to serve this site when the extension is made.
Sewer: A lift station and sanitary sewer will need to be extended to service this
property. The City has sufficient capacity to service this property when extensions
are made.
Storm Drainage: Storm drainage is proposed to outlet into Ashley Creek north of
the property.
Streets: Airport Road Is a two lane paved collector with sufficient capacity to serve
South Meadows and this site.
Garbage Collection: Available by contract from private companies.
Police Protection: Currently the Flathead County Sheriff's Department.
Fire Protection: West Valley Volunteer Fire Department.
ANTICIPATED SERVICE NEEDS:
Water. Water supply would be able to be extended to the property from the
water line north in Airport Road through the South Meadows Subdivision. If not,
a water main must be extended to connect with a main of sufficient capacity to
serve this property. Capacity and any extensions would be evaluated at the review
stage of any development permit.
Sewer: Sewer would be collected In a conventional gravity flow system which
would feed into a lift station which would feed into the City's sewerage disposal
6
plant east of the site. This disposal system would be evaluated during the review
phase of any development permit.
Storm Drainage: On -site retention and/or disposal of storm water will be evaluated
during the review phase of any proposed development. It is anticipated to drain
into Ashley Creek.
Streets: Airport Road is a two lane paved collector with sufficient capacity to serve
this site through South Meadows. In addition, street tree planting and sidewalks
would be necessary.
Garbage Collection: The City has the capacity and equipment to handle the needs
of this site at the time it becomes eligible for municipal service.
Police/Fire: City of Kalispell Police Department and Fire Department will be available
to serve the tract upon annexation. They will be able to provide "service" to this
property on the substantially same basis and in the same manner in which this
service is currently provided to the rest of the municipality.
EXTENSION AND FINANCE STRATEGIES:
The cost of extending such public services as police and fire protection are
expected to be negligible until such time as the property is developed. The
general source of money to extend these type of services is from the general tax
revenues received from this property and other properties inside the City limits.
Individual improvements to the property, including the paving of streets, the
extension of the water line, sewer line, and stormwater management
improvements will be the responsibility of the developer/landowner. Any area -
wide improvements relative to a comprehensive storm drainage system will be
financed in part by the residents of the entire municipality and in part by special
assessments for that purpose.
F:\...\KA95-1ES.CVR
rj
1 ,
Le
\\ 1
1p
• ,•..++ •Y � _^ ,r..�•^: f—', r •\a. a{ •. l +''lira'
.. • : r • ► as = — ara .'•• — 'aa ipa,iuto
--1�-• +• +` •r� +� •,•+'�, t
• "—�• • .•..L :. •�• + i / �d is ��.�..�•'�' • 49 '•'
"°' titfES � _ .. ..�_,� /�,.�'" ' ''(•a� -rat �����
• • w. a•s , I y' •'•a 1•a•
i "s, ,., i •...� •.. ar• • •< � '+r .♦ .�vi :� µi •' d mil.% �-i+. Ma• .+. ��+
s -• 2A 2S-21 '
•a
jo
j
1
TKPP 95-1CIO
_ -
SAG
_rya (►�jlt .« r. �PARIi `r �.. •.
--' � ;�.•.;:.-'•'�:','�; -,�- t REF.: KZC 95-1
4.
i •\ , y .Mn'af•,'�.tr .. .tires •4•r �iri'L•.+ '�•'�' .�_• "�"�••.�' � � �
\ s ASHLEY
COUNTYPARK
* PH. {
\ -4
SAG-1 -
•
-- -,� fflT
95'-1
..FN�..
SOMERS LAND COMPANY, INC.
1995 3rd Avenue East
Kalispell, MT 59901
Phone: (406) 257-6202
Fax:(406) 756-1093
January 11, 1995
Bruce Williams
City Manager
Drawer 1997
City of Kalispell
Kalispell, MT 59901
RE: Annexation of Belmar Addition
Dear Bruce:
Please accept this letter as the petition to annex the tract of land described in the
attached legal description to the City of Kalispell. This tract is the parcel north of, and
adjacent to, the South Meadows Subdivision which we have recently discussed. Also
enclosed for your reference is the preliminary plat of the Subdivision for your reference.
We ask that the initial zoning be R-4. Current county zoning is R-1, however the Master
Plan designates the property as Urban Residential.
The property has not been purchased by Somers Land Co. (Dennis Carver and Lum
Owens, but is subject to a Buy -sell Agreement with Undlief Enterprises. Because the
property has not closed as of this date, Mr. Lindlief is also a signatory to this letter as well
as the Consent to Annex and Notice of Withdrawal from Rural Fire District, and the
Petition for Zone Amendment.
SOMERS LAND COMPANY
Dennis F. Carver, President
LINDIEF ENTERPRISES
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. Lapp 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
PLAT Addition. The site will be developed with City services and have
crtl-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 or 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 marra-er. After
he bought the property, he was told by Parsons that much more
would be required. He planned to put in 28 feet paved r•c atU
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 j2 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 some
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 van 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 bito 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 approve:tl, 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 `here 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 requirew.:nt 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 floorl1,l:,i1% 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 allow
construction in the floodplain, which is differentiated from the
floodway. There are different standards that Tired 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 building 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, Hodgeboou,, K=.--nni dy, Lopp, Sanders,
Fraser, Bahr, and tl:+sh 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 Lonepine View
PHASE 2 / Estates Subdivision Phase 2. Phase 2 includes 11 lots for single
PRELIMINARY family/duplex residential development zoned County R-4. The
PLAT proposal would be connected to City water and sewer services,
have paved streets, and access Sunnyside Drive. The property
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 Eslat.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.
Iit Favor Thor Jackola, engineer reprs::;F=rit.afive 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«st:: of
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 concerned with the
drainage. He wanted provisions to be made so that the water
does not fill his basement. This year there has 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
frou► this project will feed directly onto Sunnyside Drive which is
at that point out of city limits and a haven for pedestrian, cycler,
joggers, etc. Everyone from families with small clrildrei► 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/Vallt;y 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 tl►at 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 see
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 moa.-mrements and I'm concerned
about the proximity of Ashley Creek and the possible impact on
the creek environment. According to the Flathead Conservation
District the road needs to be a minimum of 50 feet from the creek,
with a wide vegetation barrier to deal with runoff frou► 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 cro(-k
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 ir►habilan' vital to this area. I
am opposed to approval of this project as I feel the ir:;,acts are
not in the best interests of the neighborhood and extended
en v ire :,i rnent.
James Battee, Sunnyside Drive, " I reside or► Sunnyside Drive and
am writi►ig ir, regard to the Lone Pine View subdivision proposed
south and west of where Ashley Creek crosses Sunnyside:. I have
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 runrnors 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 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 previolts
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 Cite A n d
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 subdivission.
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 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 #13 r;hall conform to City
standards, instead of County, and add condition #16: "All areas
disturbed during development of the subdivision shall be
revegetated 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
Lapp 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 the
1.9
inconstinency in the requirement for street lights 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 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 singlF 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 t ter- S? of Section 32, T29N, R21W,
P.M.M., Flathead County.
Staff Report Parsons presented report #17PP-93-01. 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 the
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 q questions regarding a couple of conditinrr;
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, amloi-intifig
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 hearin- wns closed and it
was opened up for Board discussion.
Discussion The conditions of approval are esser-+t i:illy 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 #9, if left as stated, they will take it up with
the Commissioners. Lapp complimented the developer on putting
41
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 Flathe�id 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 sy stew. 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 Section 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 wa 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 frontage.
We feel we are offering a first class development to enhance the
community. We will be encouraging all tenants and put -chasers to
develop facilities similar to the Bonneville Power Administration
building or our own facility. We are definitely trying 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 srhorls siinh as
a high traffic residential type development would. Rai) 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 shipmrnts. 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 1
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, relative to
Terry Road. They acknowledge that Terry Road is in poor
condition, but think that since it is a county road, that in all
fairnes, tli.-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 realistic,
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 1. »st one 3-lot development currently under
consideration that will generate a lot of trunk 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 deGion
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. 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 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 world like to see Oiat
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:,l
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 pul
curbs and gutters across the street for their neighbors to the
south. If there is a RSID or a curb, gutivi, :i:=,l sidewalk system
that should go 0--rough 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 the proposal. No one
spoke in opposition. The public hearing was closed and it was
turned over to Board discussion.
Discussion The curbs and giAters 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
t 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 ... 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 eu--gttttes,--mod 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 sinscle 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 I-1
AIRPORT
(Change "B"); and from B-2 to P-1 (Change "C"). The P-1 to B-2
ZONE CHANGES j
(Change "A") property is 12.5 acres located on t1io :Less 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 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, T28, R21W. Development of
the properties would utilize City services.
Staff Report Parsons presented report #KZC-95-01. Based on the Kalispell City -
County hlastei- !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 reG trding this
matter.
11.
Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of any one of
the requested zone changes, either "A", "B", or "C"
No one spoke in favor of the City requested zone changes.
Opposition Jack Beaver, 1820 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 property
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.
Tinimreck's property, as well.
No one else spoke in opposition. The public hearing was closed,
and the mvet: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 A ttor) 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. Kennedy
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 makiii- 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 aroluid 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 did 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 cannot bi.iild 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. That h:, c—ii ld
not change the use now under the existing B-2 zone. because of
the runway protection zone.
Fraser pointed out that Mr. Beaver could usp leis 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 zoning 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, that 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
:gist 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;.arated
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 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 will support suj: iral.ing "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. He
thinks that regardless of what our recommendation will be, it is
going to be settled in cosirt.
DeGrosky asked but in good conscience, can you recommend
something that y Ia 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 this thiie.
Motion DeGrosky moved to recommend denial of zooe ch;inGe "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 favorable
recommendation to city council to grant the zone chaigge 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
alloy tine 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 pry-perty.
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 chai�-"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 %
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 finding:
Would the Proposed Zoning Conserve the Value of the Buildin! .-s?
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 re-cnn,m�-•rid that until it is
in public ownership it not be zoned as public pr�,pi-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 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.� vn 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-94-071 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 Hearing The public hearing was opened. No one spoke either in favor or
in opposition to the requested zoning text amendment. The public
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 was
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 Counr.il to
amend the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance Chapter 27.25, Section
27.25.010 and 27.25.045. Bahr seconded. On a roil call 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
PUB will be before the Boai-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.
Parsons 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.
Therese Fox Hash, President
APPROVED:CAN
rAT-Itl
Ontko, Recording Secretary
17