09. Ordinance 1233 - Mohrenweiser Zone Change - 1st ReadingORDINANCE NO. 1233
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 27.02.010, OFFICIAL ZONING MAP, CITY
OF KALISPELL ZONING ORDINANCE, (ORDINANCE NO. 1175), BY ZONING
PROPERTIES LOCATED NORTH OF THE UNDERHILL SUBDIVISION APPROXIMATELY
800 FEET EAST OF MERIDIAN ROAD AND ON THE WEST SIDE OF U.S. HIGHWAY
93 (PREVIOUSLY ZONED R-3, URBAN SINGLE FAMILY), RA-1, LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY -COUNTY MASTER
PLAN, AND TO PROVIDE AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Richard and Judith Mohrenweiser, the owners of
properties located north of the Underhill Subdivision approximately
800 feet east of Meridian Road and on the west side of U.S. Highway
93 and more particularly described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto
and therefore made a part hereof, petitioned the City of Kalispell
that the zoning classification attached to the above described
tract of land be changed to RA-1, Low Density Residential
Apartment, and
WHEREAS, the properties shown in Exhibit "A" exist as property
surrounded to the north and northwest by R-3 classification, to the
east is Highway 93 and beyond the highway is zoned H-1
classification, to the south is zoned R-3 classification, and to
the southwest is zoned RA-1 classification, and
WHEREAS, the petition of Richard and Judith Mohrenweiser was
the subject of a report compiled by the Flathead Regional
Development Office, #KZC-95-03, dated June 27, 1995, in which the
Flathead Regional Development Office evaluated the petition and
recommended that the properties as shown in Exhibit "A" be rezoned
RA-1, Low Density Residential Apartment, as requested by the
petition, and
WHEREAS, the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning
Commission issued a report rejecting FRDO Report #KZC95-03 as
findings of fact, adopting new negative findings and unanimously
recommending that the zone change from R-3, Urban Single Family, to
RA-1, Low Density Residential Apartment for the properties as shown
in Exhibit "A" be DENIED, and
WHEREAS, after considering all the evidence submitted on the
proposal to zone the properties as shown in Exhibit "A" RA-1, Low
Density Residential Apartment; the City Council makes the following
based upon the criterion set forth in Section 76-3-608, M.C.A., 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, more specifically the
North Meridian Neighborhood Plan, adopted in 1994.
According to the Neighborhood Plan, the property is
designated for "High Density Residential". This request
is considered in conformance with the Master Plan and was
expected.
Will the Requested Zone Secure Safety from Fire, Panic
and Other Dangers?
Development within the RA-1 zone is 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, any
specific development more intense than a duplex would
require a conditional use permit and/or subdivision
approval.
One limitation to developing this property would be the
topographic constraints. This limitation is not
considered severe enough to preclude development. The
cross slope of the property is approximately 18%.
Another limitation is the access, only a single point of
access is available to service the property. This is
Underhill Court where it extends to the north. This area
(Underhill) is in essence one cul-de-sac.
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 Master Plan. The City's Master
Plan does support the requested zone change. This zone
would not intrude on the health or general welfare of
this particular neighborhood. The surrounding uses are
considered compatible with the proposed zoning
classification.
Will the Requested Zone Provide for Adequate Light and
Air?
The parking, landscaping, and setback requirements of the
zoning ordinance would ensure that light and air are
adequately provided when the property is developed.
Will the Requested Zone Change Prevent the Overcrowding
of Land?
lei
Overcrowding of land can occur when development out -paces
or exceeds the environmental or service limitations of
the property. Adequate infrastructure is in place in the
area to accommodate the land uses allowed in the
requested zone. Access is through a single family
neighborhood. A parcel of 1.8 acres could potentially be
developed with 26 units; however because of topographic
limitations and access, development would be expected to
be substantially less. The application indicates that
the intent is to subdivide the property into 5 lots for
duplexes. This is more realistic and would net 10 units.
Will the Requested Zone Avoid Undue Concentration of
People?
Concentration of people is a function of land use.
Development will certainly occur on this site if the zone
change is approved. The uses associated with the RA-1
zoning designation anticipate a certain concentration of
people and should not create an undue hardship on the
neighborhood.
Is the Requested Zone Designed to Lessen Congestion in
the Street and Facilitate the Adequate Provision of
Transportation, Water, Sewer, Schools, Parks and Other
Public Requirements?
As outlined in the Neighborhood Plan, the RA-1 zone is
designed to be utilized for this area. The Underhill
Court north access was expected to serve as a street to
this property and also was expected to serve as access
north of the subject property. The new Neighborhood Plan
for this area amended this concept to limit access only
to the immediate north, the subject property. The
development constraints of the RA-1 zone are designed to
lessen congestion in the streets for any development by
requiring a conditional use permit for development over
a duplex, which may require two access points.
Additional demands for transportation, water, and sewer
collection as a result of development of the property
would be evaluated pursuant to individual development
proposals. Adequate services exist in the area. The
residential nature of this zone would impact schools and
parks. No significant impact is expected.
Does the Requested Zone Give Consideration to the
Particular Suitability of the Property for Particular
Uses?
This property is an expansion of the existing RA-1 zone
and is well suited for this change because of the types
of uses permitted in this zone, those being residential
3
in nature. The property in question appears to have a
cross slope of approximately 18%. This cross slope will
be an important consideration at the time of development
but is not considered a significant impediment to
development.
Does the Requested Zoning Give Consideration to the
Character of this District?
The property under consideration in this proposal fits
the character of the district because Kalispell has
amended its Master Plan for this area to create The North
Meridian Neighborhood Plan. This Neighborhood Plan and
its parent plan indicate the need for additional
affordable housing in Kalispell. It is the character of
the Kalispell District as outlined in the Neighborhood
Plan to help supply the jurisdiction with this housing
type. The RA-1 zone would help supply that need. The
zone is designed for multifamily uses customarily
considered to be the most affordable type of housing. To
the southwest is zoned the same and developed with
apartments. The requested zone change is not out of
character with the surrounding city as proposed by the
Master Plan.
Would the Proposed Zoning Conserve the Value of the
Buildings?
The property is currently vacant and would be developed
into residential uses. A change to the RA-1 zone should
not significantly impact, erode, or devalue the
neighborhood beyond the type of uses that are currently
allowed or that exist in the area, those being
residential. If this property were to be developed as
apartments a conditional use permit would be required
which could buffer the single family development to the
south.
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. This type of zone
and its associated land uses are expected in this area
and would provide the City with additional housing units
when developed. The Plan map specifically identifies
this location for this zone. The neighborhood consists
of residential 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:
4
SECTION I. Section 27.02.010, of the Official Zoning Map
of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, (Ordinance #1175) is
hereby amended by designating the properties as shown in
Exhibit "A", attached hereto and therefore made a part
hereof, as RA-1, Low Density Residential Apartment.
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.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR OF THE CITY OF
KALISPELL THIS DAY OF , 1995.
ATTEST:
t
Debbie Gifford, CMC
Clerk of Council
5
Douglas D. Rauthe, Mayor
EXHIBIT A
MOHRENWEISER ZONE CHANGE REQUEST
A tract of land situated, lying and being in the Government Lot 1 of Section 7, Township 28 North,
Range 21 West, P.M., M., Flathead County, Montana and more particularly described as follows
to wit:
Beginning at the SE comer of that tract of land described on Certificate of Survey No. 2486, said
point being the True Point of Beginning; thence
South 89059'35" East, a distance of 145.39 feet to a point on the westerly right-of-way of Highway
No. 93 and the point of curvature of a non -tangent curve, concave to the Northeast, having a radius
of 1512.50 feet, a radial bearing of North 58032'42"; thence Southeast along said curve, through
a central angle of 13°05'14", an arc length of 345.48 feet to a point; thence
South 0033'50" West leaving said right-of-way, a distance of 31.86 feet to a point; thence
North 8903758" West a distance of 121.16 feet to a point; thence
North 89021'58" West a distance of 263.55 feet to a point; thence
North 0023'56" West a distance of 299.87 feet to a point; thence
South 89057'22" East a distance of 24.83 feet to the place of beginning.
{' IN THE EVENT THE COUNCIL DETERMINES TO DEFEAT ORDINANCE NO. 1234, THE
FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT SHOULD GO IN THE RECORD:
NEGATIVE FINDINGS ADOPTED BY THE KALISPELL
CITY/COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AUGUST 8, 1995
MOHRENWEISER ZONE CHANGE
K�_. U isal 1
The subject property is within the jurisdiction of the KaMspell City -County Master Plan, more
specifically the North Meridian Neighborhood Plan, adopted in 1994. According to the
Neighborhood Plan, the property is designated for "High Density Residential". This request
is considered in general conformance with the Master Plan. However, the property is better
suited as a transition area between the single family residential and anticipated high density
residential, because of problems associated with the existing high density residential
development that is occurring in the area.
t Development within the RA-1 zone is 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.
One limitation to developing this property would be the topographic constraints. The cross
slope of the property is approximately 18%. Another Limitation is the access, only a single
point of access is available to service the property. This is Underhill Court where it extends
to the north. This area (Underhill) is in essence one cul-de-sac.
Because of the designated access, this zone change would not secure safety from fire, panic
and other dangers.
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 Master Plan. The density of this zone would
intrude on the health or general welfare of this particular neighborhood. The surrounding uses
are not compatible with the proposed zoning classification.
r
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 not in place in the area to
accommodate the land uses allowed in the requested zone. Access is through a single family
neighborhood. A parcel of 1.8 acres could potentially be developed with 26 units.
t • W091 J"WAII01t NXII ZI 11_ $ T. 10 I
Concentration of people is a function of land use. Development will certainly occur, on this
site if the zone change is approved. The uses and density dated with the RA-1 zoning
designation anticipate a certain concentration of people and would create a undue hardship on
the neighborhood with the addition of 26 units on 1.8 acres.
IS THE REQUESTED ZONE DESIGNED TO LESSEN CONGESTION IN THE STREET
AND FACILITATE THE ADEQUATE PROVISION OF !MNSPORTATIONL WATER,,
SEWER, SCHOOLS, PARKS AND OTHER PUBLIC REQUIREMENTS?
Based on the potential 26 unit development, this would result in over 182 vehicular trips per
day on what is essentially a very long cul-de-sac. The Underhill Court north access was
< expected to serve as a street to this property and also was expected to serve as access north of
the subject property. The new Neighborhood Plan for this area amended this concept to limit
access only to the immediate north, the subject property. The development constraints of the
RA-1 zone are designed to lesson congestion in the streets for any development by requiring
a conditional use permit for development over a duplex, which may require two access points.
There is no potential for two access points, and the Master Plan specifically indicated that there
would be no through access. When the Neighborhood Plan was adopted, access from this
street out to Meridian Road was specifically excluded. Additional demands for transportation,
water, and sewer collection as a result of development of the property would be evaluated
pursuant to individual development proposals. Adequate services exist in the area. The
residential nature of this zone would impact schools and parks. A significant impact is
expected.
DOES THE REQUESTED ZONING GIVE REASONABLE CONSIDERATION TO THE
CHARACTER OF THIS DISTRICT?
The requested zoning, while potentially would provide for affordable housing in Kalispell, is
not necessarily compatible with the property immediately to the south, and the density
proposed offers no buffering from single family residential to anything north of the Underhill
Addition.
2
Ile
property is currently vacantc:1. •w..... • 1- developed ,.. residentialuses. - change to
the RA-1 •.- • 1significantly impact,erode, or devalueneighborhood tl 1..... • t f tfa._ type
ofuses thatan currentlyf*:FI or thata1 to It,. south, thosei,a1• single fiunily
3
OCTOBER 13, 1995
KALISPELL CITY COUNCIL
RE: MOHRENWEISER ZONE CHANGE R-3 TO RA-1
DEAR COUNCIL MEMBERS:
IT HAS BECOME QUITE APPARENT THAT THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE
COUNCIL DO NOT WANT TO CHANGE THE ZONING TO AN RA-1, EVEN THOUGH
ALL THE "PLANS" RECOMMEND IT.
THE MERIDIAN POINTE PROJECT HAS HAD SUCH AN IMPACT ON THIS
NEIGHBORHOOD THAT NO ONE WANTS TO ALLOW ANOTHER SUCH PROJECT TO
TAKE PLACE. EVEN THOUGH THIS WAS NOT MY INTENT FROM THE BEGINNING,
IT COULD BE ALLOWED UNDER THE RA-1 ZONING IF ALL THE CONDITIONS
WERE MET. THEREFORE, I WOULD LIKE TO CHANGE THE REQUEST FOR ZONING
FROM RA-1 TO R-4, DUPLEX ZONING. THIS ZONING WOULD LESSEN ANY
IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD SINCE IT PERMITS LESS DENSE DEVELOPMENT
THAN AN RA-1 ZONE. IT WOULD ALSO CREATE A BUFFER ZONE BETWEEN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD R-3 AND THE POSSIBLE RA-1 TO THE PROPERTIES NORTH.
WHEN I BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY, MERIDIAN POINTE WASN'T THERE. MY
PLANS THEN WERE TO SPLIT THE PROPERTY INTO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. THE
VIEW WAS OF THE SOUTHWEST MOUNTAINS. NOW, THE VIEW IS OF THE
BACKSIDE OF A HUGH HOUSING DEVELOPMENT. IT WILL BE REALLY HARD, IF
NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO SELL LOTS FOR SINGLE FAMILY AND HAVE SOMEONE
BUILD A $150,000 HOME WITH THE EXISTING VIEW.
MY OPTIONS NOW ARE TO BUILD RENTAL UNITS OR TO CLUSTER
DEVELOP. WE ARE INVESTIGATING THE CLUSTER OPTION, WHICH COULD BE
ALLOWED UNDER AN R-3 OR R-4. THE REASON FOR MY REQUEST FOR AN R-4
IS THAT THE PROPERTY DOESN'T QUITE MEET ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT. IF I CANNOT CLUSTER DEVELOP, THEN UNDER THE
R-4, I CAN AT LEAST BUILD DUPLEXES WHICH COULD BE LEASED OR SOLD.
I WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR ALLOWING THE ZONING CHANGE TO R-4.
KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING
JULY 11, 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 6:05
p.m. by Vice -Chair Pam Kennedy. Board members present were
Walter Bahr, Fred Hodgeboom, Milt Carlson, Robert Sanders, Robert
Lapp and Pam Kennedy. Board members absent were Mike Fraser
(excused) and Therese Hash (excused). John Parsons, Senior
Planner, represented the Flathead Regional Development Office.
Brian Wood, Zoning Administrator, represented the City of
Kalispell. There were approximately 22 people in attendance.
APPROVAL OF The minutes of the June 13, 1995 meeting were approved as written
MINUTES on a motion by Bahr, second by Hodgeboom. All members present
voted aye.
HOFERT ZONE The first public hearing was introduced on a request by John
CHANGE / Hofert, et al, for a zone change from R-1 (Suburban Residential)
R-1 TO I-1 to I-1 (Light Industrial) on approximately 6 acres. The location
is south of US Highway 2 approximately 300 feet east of Hathaway
Lane, west of Kalispell, in the West Side Zoning District. The
property is described as part of Assessor's Tracts 13 and 13C in
the NW4 of Section 13, Township 28 North, Range 22 West, P.M.M.,
Flathead County, Montana.
Staff Report Parsons presented report #FZC-95-08. The request was evaluated
in accordance with the statutory procedure for zone changes.
Based on the evaluation of that criteria, staff recommended the
zone change be denied.
Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the zone
change.
In Favor John Schwarz, with Billmayer Engineering, and technical
representative for the applicant, Mr. Hofert said he was
disappointed with the staff's recommendation for denial. He
wanted to shed some light on the zone change from their
perspective. The biggest situation that Mr. Parsons pointed out
was conformance with the Master Plan. The Master Plan is more
than a line on the map, there are not definite boundaries. If you
look at the map you will see there is industrial zones in the area.
The scale on the document is a bit obscured in that this document
is not meant to be something that defines lines and boundaries.
We do have industrial zoning designations in the area that extends
towards the highway. We take offense that Mr. Parsons says this
is not conforming to the Master Plan. He displayed photographs
of adjacent properties and land uses. There are a number of
industrial uses adjacent to this property, and to tell my client
that his property is suitable for residential development is a
misnomer. I don't think anybody would put a residential
development in this area. This is over 6 acres and it does have
some value and it is your job to define a recommendation on that.
We feel that recommendation should be industrial zoning. We feel
that light industrial would provide a good buffer to the City.
Another point was that congestion would likely increase. That is
debatable. If the lot was allowed to develop as residential with
approximately 8-10 vehicle trips per day. Whether an industrial
use would have a similar traffic impact would depend on what
kind of use went in there. Those questions are dealt with at
subdivision review. The way to move traffic is not to push
industrial zoning to a place not suited for it. So, congestion is
not a problem. Mr. Parsons also brought up the fact that the
zoning does not follow the property lines. All we did was line up
the boundary line to the existing lots, and continued that line to
industrial designation to the south. The historical use of this
property is industrial. It was one of the largest Christmas tree
distribution centers in North America. We have utility records
from that use. We also have a business plan that confirms that
was the use. We appreciate your time and are available for
questions.
Victor Workman, Whitefish, said I work for Century 219 Whitefish
Land Office, and am a City Council member for Whitefish. I would
like to explain the reasons why we are requesting the zone
change. Mr. Hofert is not an out-of-state developer who is trying
to take advantage of the property. The situation came about in
light that he contacted me as a representative wanting to liquidate
his property. After my investigation, I found that the residential
zoning value on the property compared to a light industrial
zoning was quite significant.. That is why we are here, requesting
that we allow Mr. Hofert to sell his property for its true value.
We think it is very important for you to know that the Christmas
tree company operated out of that location from the 50's through
the 80's. They have been landowners in Flathead County since
the 30's. They not only pay taxes on the property but were
seasonal summer and fall employers, employing help in the valley.
In your consideration of the zone change, I think it is very
important that you look at what you are doing to the valley as a
whole. This zone change does not affect the master plan, from my
viewpoint. It continues the zoning that is in place there. In
answer to Mr. Parsons question on why did we do the [zone] split.
We were being considerate to the residential homeowners in the
area. We took the basic geography there about 200 feet from the
highway which there are a few homes in the area, and trying to
be aware of any potential of any decrease of values. We felt that
2
Opposition
Discussion
was the best way to help to not encourage the loss of residential
properties that are there. I am here to answer any questions.
John Hofert, 322 N. McCadden Place, Los Angeles, California, the
owner of the property said that the testimony by John Schwarz
and Victor Workman was accurate. He had records that showed
that they have owned this property since the 1930's. He hoped
the Board would find their request reasonable.
There being no further proponents, the public hearing was opened
to opponents of the zone change request,
Don Claypool, 1520 Highway 2 West, said he was strongly opposed
to the zone change.
Kim Ross, 1450 Highway 2 West, spoke in opposition to the zone
change request. Her home is located in the middle of the area
under discussion, and there are other homes nearby. This
industrial zone would be in her backyard.
There being no other speakers either in favor or in opposition,
the public hearing was closed and the meeting opened to Board
discussion.
Carlson noted that along the railroad spur, it has been proposed
to be designated as part of the Rails to Trails Program.
Lopp referred to when the Master Plan was done and the
boundaries were set up, and asked if the tree farm was in
operation at that time? Parsons responded that the Master Plan
was adopted in 1986. Lopp said that when we were developing
the Master Plan, we weighed back and forth in each area the land
use as it was occurring at that point, and some things were
grandfathered as we drew the boundaries. Parsons explained that
the Master Plan, as with zoning, is not intended to create
conformity with existing land uses to what is on the map. What
a Master Plan does is try to look to the future and ask the
question that "In the future what is it that we would like to see
out there?" What types of zoning and what types of land use?
So, regardless of whether Mr. Hofert was operating his Christmas
tree operation out of there, for the most part, it was decided by
the County Commissioners at that time, and City Council at the
time, that this area in the future was not to be industrial. It was
to be residential. It had the existing industrial, basically the
lumberyard, and it wasn't going to go any further west.
Lopp commented that he strongly agreed on the issue of a split
zone. We hit so many snags when zoning does not conform to
property lines. We have spent considerable time correcting that,
3
especially in the Evergreen area where we didn't pay attention to
property lines.
Hodgeboom requested that the list of uses allowed in the I-1 zone
be read. Parsons read the list of allowable uses from the zoning
ordinance.
Carlson commented that when the Master Plan was updated, the
deficiency of industrial land under the County jurisdiction was
increased by 500 acres. There is a surplus of industrial land
currently in effect. You take the Master Plan map and have a
green buffer from the existing industrial to what should be
residential, urban and suburban, you take the entire area as a
whole. I think the appropriate thing would be to come before this
Board with a Master Plan amendment rather than trying to zone
an area that the Master Plan does not allow to have in it. This
is a short cut in trying to knock down the integrity of the Master
Plan itself, which is the best thing we have to go with. We are
constantly revising it and taking into account neighborhood plans
and the efforts of people ten years ago, plus what has been done
since that time. Revision would be appropriate, but not coming in
to zone something which does not comply with the Master Plan.
Motion Lopp moved that the Kalispell City -County Planning Board acting
as the Zoning Commission, adopt FRDO staff report #FZC-95-08 as
findings of fact and forward a recommendation of denial to the
County Commissioners for the requested zone change from R-1 to
I-1. Carlson seconded. On a roll call vote Lopp, Carlson,
Sanders, Bahr, Hodgeboom and Kennedy voted aye. The motion
carried on an unanimous vote to deny the zone change request.
MOHRENWEISER Kennedy introduced the next public hearing on a request by
ZONE CHANGE / Richard and Judith Mohrenweiser for a zone change from R-3 to
R-3 TO RA-1 RA-1 on approximately 2 acres. The property is located north of
the Underhill Subdivision, 300 feet north of Arizona Street, and
west of US Highway 93. The property is described as part of
Tract GB in the NW4 Section 7, Township 22 North, Range 21 West,
P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana.
Staff Report Parsons presented an overview of report #KZC-95-03. The request
was evaluated in accordance with the statutory criteria for zone
changes, and based on the evaluation, staff recommended approval.
Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to proponents of the proposal.
In Favor Jean Johnson, Paul Stokes & Associates, technical representative
for the applicant, spoke in favor of the zone change. We agree
with the staff report. A couple of issues is that number one the
change is in compliance with the Master Plan and more
specifically, the North Meridian Neighborhood Plan. The change
4
would be contiguous with an existing RA-1 zone. A lot of
consideration has gone into development of this parcel that some
of those items would be addressed in a subdivision proposal.
Density, traffic, how best can we use this parcel of land. There
are some slope considerations. We have addressed those and we
feel we have a good plan. Again, that would be presented to this
Board during the subdivision hearing. Our intent is to have five
lots to be made available for duplexes. The land would not be
economically feasible to be developed for single family residences.
I am available for questions.
Richard Mohrenweiser, one of the applicants, testified that they
have put a lot of time and effort into this parcel, so far, such as
bringing in the utilities properly, taking care of groundwater
after development. This has already been provided. The
neighbors are here and they have been busy getting a petition
signed. Perhaps it is the old syndrome of "I'm here, let's not let
anyone else in". We all know that if they didn't let anyone in,
they wouldn't have the opportunity to protest any of this stuff.
The zoning request for RA-1 has staff approval. It is in
compliance with the Master Plan. I want to develop the land to
its best use, and I believe the RA-1 zone will accomplish that.
There being no other proponents, the public hearing was opened
to those opposed.
Opposition Vern Wyman, 507 W. Arizona Street, said he has lived there since
1950. Actually, we are not opposed to the zone. We are opposed
to more apartment developments like the Meridian Pointe complex.
He read into the record the petition signed by 50 residents of
Underhill Court and West Arizona Street who are opposed to the
RA-1 zone density. Attached to the petition was a vicinity map
showing the location of those opposed in proximity to the Meridian
Pointe complex. The petition was submitted and made a part of
the record. We moved here in 1950 and there were three houses
on West Arizona Street. Now, there are about thirty on West
Arizona and Underhill Court. We consider that a natural
development. Last year, with the Meridian Pointe complex
apartment building, there were 48 families in one year. That is
what we don't want is for this area to become another apartment
complex. Mr. Mohrenweiser mentioned duplexes. Single family or
duplexes would be fine. The RA-1 zone says Low Density, but we
consider 48 families on 3 acres as High Density. That is what we
are opposed to. The R-4 zone designation is for duplexes as I
understand it. We would favor the R-4 over the RA-1 zone.
Gerianne Robbins, 637 Underhill Court, questioned what did low
density mean?
5
Parsons answered that what Low Density Residential Apartment,
which RA-1 is, you could put approximately 26 units on 1.8 acres.
Her second question is what is the definition of "non-residential
use"?
Parsons read the list of both permitted and conditionally permitted
non-residential uses in the RA-1 zone classification from the
zoning ordinance.
Ms. Robbins pointed out that based on staff's elaboration the
entire neighborhood is at great risk of having much greater
impact on the site, than the proposed five duplex units,
particularly with the RA-1 that allows 26 units. We, in a single
family residential neighborhood, are already greatly impacted by
the Meridian Pointe by having approximately 200-250 people
dumped in our backyard within a year. We have the potential of
26 additional units with an average of 3-4 people per unit onto
this small area. We have already been greatly impacted by the
noise. My neighbor has had her mailbox blown up, she has had
prowlers try to break and enter. For the buffering that Meridian
Pointe supposedly had to buffer high density from single family
residential, I don't think a few dead trees and shrubs is really a
buffer. My family and I protest having this zone change with a
possible impact of having 26 units up there. This low density is
a far cry from what our single family housing is.
The gentleman talked about there already being drainage in place
to accommodate what, is going down the street. Excuse me, but
this month, my front yard and street have been flooded for
approximately 7 days because of the rain we have had. So, if
that is already in place without anything being built, I am
guessing that we will continue to have those problems. Another
great concern we have is the traffic impact. We have gone to
both the city and county about that dangerous intersection of
West Arizona and Sth Avenue WN. Nothing is being modified. We
have concerns about the traffic and safety impact of additional
people being put into this neighborhood. We would prefer to see
this property developed as single family, or if it is developed to
a higher density, will there be an ingress/egress through
Meridian Pointe therefore negating promises we have had that
there will not be that traffic impact. I would strongly urge the
Board to look at narrowing that definition and allowing R-4 which
only allows duplexes.
Mildred Thompson, 1079 N. Meridian Road, located right next to the
Meridian Pointe project. We have had considerable trouble, with
children in our yard, on our buildings, they go back into our
trees and smoke. We are afraid to leave our house because of the
L
vandalism. This is what is happening in our neighborhood and on
our property. We are opposed to the RA-1 zone request.
Janet Wyman, 507 West Arizona, testified that the site if very
steep. I really can't imagine anything being built there. In the
neighborhood, there really is no place for children to go. I would
love to see this site made into a park. Children have been using
it for a sledding hill for years. It is very steep.
Glen Thompson, 1079 N. Meridian Road, said he is against this zone
change. My property borders Meridian Pointe, and I have enough
trouble without any more kids on my property. I feel like an old
scrooge chasing kids off.
Keith Robinson, 501 West Arizona, echoes all that has been said in
opposition to the zone change request. I can't see how they can
do construction on that slope. The higher density bothers me, as
well as the conditional uses allowed in the RA-1 zone. Planning
is a good thing to have, but allowing this level of density on this
site is like constructing a slum, and destroying the neighborhood.
There being no others to speak in opposition, the public hearing
was closed and it was opened to Board discussion.
Discussion Carlson commented that being a Master Plan advocate, the Master
Plan indicates the maximum densities for an area, which does not
mean that we have to comply with the maximum each time it is
proposed. Take into account the character of the neighborhood
of how that fits into the surrounding territory. That is what I
feel planning is all about. This would be opening it up to a much
denser character adjacent to single family residences.
Kennedy pointed out that the Underhill neighborhood is zoned
R-3, with the only RA-1 being Meridian Pointe. There is no R-4
in the area, so that would not be an option, because that would
be spot zoning.
Parsons said that is not correct. Spot zoning typically occurs
when it is not in conformance with the Master Plan, and there is
no other zoning of its type in the area. When a request like this
comes in, you look at the Master Plan, the policies and make your
best guess. The applicant has indicated that he wishes to
subdivide the property and put duplexes on there. He has even
submitted covenants. Those things are irrelevant in a zone
change request. You have to look at what the zone permits.
Getting back to spot zoning, what the R-4 would do is that since
it is in conformance with the master plan, it would set a pattern
of development to occur. In this particular case, it is very
limited because you have RA-1 immediately to the west, the
highway north and east, so in effect what you have is a buffer
7
between what we would expect to see. Whether the R-4 continues
north it is not technically considered a spot zone.
Lopp said that going back to the Neighborhood Plan, there was a
lot of discussion of this particular property because of the access.
What I see as a significant difference between this piece and
Meridian Pointe is that the access to Meridian Pointe is restricted
to Meridian Road. Having lived in the area, I know that the kids
cut through. We cannot control that aspect, but we can control
vehicle access. I have a real problem with this proposal, at a
density that would allow 26 units, the only access to the property
is a cul-de-sac through a single family neighborhood. A
neighborhood that is well established and has a serious road
problem, which is the junction of West Arizona and 5th Ave WN.
It is a hazardous intersection. Adding the potential of 26 more
units compounds that. Related to that, is once the zone is
changed anything allowed in that zone can be put in there. I
realize there is a plan associated with this request, but minds and
circumstances can change. I object to the staff's finding that
"this property is an expansion of the existing RA-1 zone" on the
basis that this is not being accessed through to Meridian, so it is
not an extension of Meridian Pointe, even though it is contiguous
to it. The access is in fact, through an R-3 zone. I also contend
under the finding Does the Requested Zoning Give Reasonable
Consideration to the Character of This District?. there is a strong
neighborhood sense in the Underhill/Arizona area. They have
maintained it and managed to hold their area together by opposing
the extension of Arizona onto Meridian, which would change the
character completely. It is a backwater residential area, that is
quiet and by sticking a potential of 26 units up there, we would
have serious impacts on the neighborhood. I would support a
modification to an R-4 classification.
Parsons explained that the Board can make a recommendation for
any zone of a lesser intensity use than what was requested. What
has often been a point of contention is the definition of the word
"district". We now have a legal opinion from Judge Curtis, and
a district is defined by Kalispell, which is the district this is in.
All of Kalispell. The Lower Side Zoning District is the district, the
Willow Glen District, etc. So, district does not mean neighborhood.
Bahr asked if it is legally possible to develop access through one
of these properties onto Meridian?
Parsons answered that legally it was not possible. He explained
that this a flag shaped lot. The request is for a portion of the
lot to be rezoned to RA-1, with the intention of doing a boundary
line adjustment to eliminate the flag pole part of the lot. The flag
pole portion of the lot is less than 30 feet wide. It is not wide
enough for a road easement to Meridian. The property also has
8
inadequate access through the Underhill Subdivision. During the
discussions on the worth Meridian Neighborhood Plan, at one point
we talked about punching the road through to connect with
Meridian Road, because that was our understanding that it was
the original intention of that road. The approval of the North
Meridian Plan limited that access of the immediate property to the
north.
Hodgeboom asked the applicant if an R-4 zone would meet their
objectives? Mr. Mohrenweiser replied that he did not know. He
doesn't know what would best fit the land until he gets
information from his architects. To be denied access for the full
potential of the property is not fair.
Lopp said that there has to be a balance of the desires of the
property owner with his neighbors. Whatever he does affects the
valuation of their property.
Kennedy pointed out that the Board has the option of granting
the applicant a continuance of 30 days to give the developer an
opportunity to review the possibility of applying for an R-4 zone.
The applicant was asked to address their preference.
Jean Johnson replied that it would be their desire to continue this
matter for 30 days to give the applicant an opportunity to
incorporate this into his long term plans for this property.
Motion Bahr moved to continue discussion on the Mohrenweiser zone
change request for 30 days. Sanders seconded.
Discussion followed on the motion to point out that the developer
would potentially come back with a different proposal. The
interests of the neighborhood should have an opportunity to
comment at the next meeting.
The motion was amended to open the meeting to public comment,
as well. On a roll call vote Sanders, Hodgeboom, Lopp, Bahr,
Carlson and Kennedy voted aye. The motion carried unanimously
to continue this matter for 30 days.
GLACIER BANK Next public hearing was introduced on a request by Glacier Bank
CONDITIONAL for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a drive-in banking facility.
USE PERMIT The site would contain eight (8) drive -through lanes. Access
would be from Center Street and form a proposed driveway
connecting 1st and 3rd Avenue East North on the north side of
Center Street. The property is part of Tract 2A in the SE4 of
Section 7, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, F.M.M., Flathead
County, Montana.
9
Staff Report Parsons presented an overview of report #KCU-95-03. Based on
evaluation of the necessary criteria for the requested conditional
use, staff recommended granting the permit subject to nine (9)
conditions of approval. Condition #3 was amended to delete the
parking aspect of the condition, as it was determined that
adequate parking for the bank and for Lots 1 and 3 can be
provided onsite. Therefore, Condition #3 would read: Enter into
a cross access agreement with Lots 1 and 3 of Kalispell Market
Place Phase 3.
Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the requested
conditional use permit.
In Favor Mick Blodnick, 475 3rd Avenue EN, Kalispell, stated that we have
been working for many months putting this project together.
We've had some problems with acquiring property in the past,
because we wanted to keep this as a development that would
continue to enhance the City of Kalispell and keep this business
in the Kalispell area. We were successful in acquiring this land
and are in the final stages of getting the subdivision approved.
We have got a major problem with the drive-in facility where we
are located now. It is approaching 20 years of age and is just
not able to handle the traffic flow. We've got a major amount of
congestion that takes place on 2nd Street between 4tain and 1st
Avenue West. We feel that this new site and this new project off
of Center Street will give us the ability to expand the facility,
take pressure off that thoroughfare, and at the same time improve
an area that is really just an abandoned lot. Our plan is to put
a nice, attractive building with landscaping, similar to what we
have done at our old parking lot. We want to start as soon as
possible.
John McMillan, President of Glacier Bank, 258 Juniper Bend Drive,
spoke in favor of this project. The bank has a definite need for
this project and we have no complaints with the conditions
recommended by the staff.
There were no others wishing to speak either in favor or in
opposition to the proposal. The public hearing was closed and
opened to Board discussion.
Discussion Lopp asked about the 24 foot wide paved surface for the proposed
east/west cut across. Parsons responded that this proposed road
would meet City standards for a two-way travel way. It will be
a private driveway.
Motion Bahr moved to adopt FRDO staff report #KCU-95-03 as findings of
fact and forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council
to grant the conditional use permit subject to the nine (9)
conditions as amended. Lapp seconded. Ott a roll call vote Bahr,
10
Hodgeboom, Lopp, Carlson, Sanders and Kennedy voted aye. The
motion carried 6-0 in favor.
OLD BUSINESS Parsons announced that the State legislature has recently made
changes to the subdivision regulations to become effective October
1, 1995. A public hearing will be held on the changes. The
Kalispell Subdivision Regulations will be rewritten to reflect the
legislative changes.
There was no other old business.
NEW BUSINESS The meeting time was discussed. The Planning Board members
were polled and everyone present preferred that the meetings
start at 7:00 p.m. rather than 6:00 p.m.
There was no other new business.
ADJOURNMENT There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at
7:35 p.m.
I /�f
mela J. B. Kennedy, Vice -Chair E zabeth Ontko, Recording Secretary
1 / /APPROVED: 6W �-yL / F-s-
1t
KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING
AUGUST 8, 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 7:02
p.m. by Vice Chairperson Pam Kennedy. Board members present
ere Robert Lopp, lilt Carlson, Fred Hodgeboom Michael Conner
o ert Sanders an Pam Kennedy. Therese Hash arrived at 7:01
p.m. and had a conflict of interest on the first agenda item, so
recused herself from presiding. Absent Board members were
Walter Bahr and Michael Fraser (excused). John Parsons, Senior
Planner represented the Flathead Regional Development Office.
Brian Wood, Zoning Administrator, represented the City of
Kalispell. There were approximately ten people in the audience.
APPROVAL OF The minutes of the July 11, 1995 meeting were approved as
MINUTES submitted on a motion by Carlson, second by Hodgeboom. All
members present voted aye.
OLD BUSINESS
WEST Under old business was the continuance of consideration of a
EVERGREEN request on behalf of the Patty Shelton Trust/Mike Seaman for
MANOR preliminary plat approval on 34 acres for a 148 space mobile home
PRELIMINARY park. The project location is on the southeast corner of West
PLAT / Evergreen Drive and River Road approximately 2000 feet west of
CONTINUANCE US Highway 2. The site is proposed to be developed utilizing
Evergreen Water and Sewer District facilities, have 2 park/open
space areas, and 2 access roads (One on West Evergreen Drive and
one on River Road) and be known as West Evergreen Manor. A
portion of the property is zoned R-3 and a portion is zoned R-1;
a zone change request to zone all the property R-3 has been
denied by the County Commissioners.
Staff Report Parsons announced that a letter submitted by the applicant's
representative, Tom Sands, was distributed to Board members,
requesting a 30 day continuance to redesign the development to
be compatible with the underlying zoning district. Prior to giving
the staff report and making the recommendation, staff asked that
the Board take action on the request for continuance. The
request has been continued twice before.
The letter from Tom Sands was read for the record.
Discussion Lapp commented that it was a reasonable request. There was a
lot of opposition to this proposal, and may still be, but the
developers have recognized not only our wishes, which were
supported by the Commissioners, but also recognition of the
neighborhood sentiments.
Hodgeboom questioned if a continuance was appropriate, based on
a substantial redesign of what we originally reviewed and heard
testimony on.
Lopp agreed and said that his support was based on continuance
of the public hearing, as well as renoticing the public hearing in
the paper.
motion Lopp moved to grant the request for a continuance of 30 days, to
the September meeting. The public hearing on this application,
will also be continued and that there will be a renotification of
said public hearing. Sanders seconded. On a roll call vote
Bodgeboom, Carlson, Conner, Lopp, Sanders, and Kennedy voted in
favor. Hash abstained. The motion to continue the public hearing
on the redesign of the preliminary plat for West Evergreen Manor
passed on a 6-0-1 vote.
It was noted for the record that the meeting was turned over to
President Therese Hash.
MORRENWEISER Hash introduced the next item under old business which was a
ZONE CHANGE / continuance of consideration of a request by Richard and Judith
R-3 TO RA-1 / Mohrenwei.ser for a zone change from R-3 to RA-1 on approximately
CONTINUANCE 2 acres. The property is located north of the Underhill
Subdivision, 300 feet north of Arizona Street, and west of US
Highway 93. The property is described as part of Tract 6B in the
NW4 Section 7, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead
County, Montana.
Staff Report Parsons stated that this application was continued from the
previous meeting to allow the applicant an opportunity to explore
alternate zones. The original request was for a zone change from
R-3 to RA-1. The applicant was requested to look at the
possibility of an R-4 zone change instead of the RA-1. The RA-1
meets all the necessary criteria to be rezoned and staff has
recommended approval of the RA-1 zoning. At the public hearing,
there was concern about the density on size and access to this
particular piece of property. However, it is my understanding
that the applicant has considered the R-4 and has decided to go
forward with the RA-1 zone request.
The public hearing was closed at the previous meeting and
continued with the understanding that it would be reopened for
public comment.
2
Public Comment The public hearing was opened to those wishing to speak in favor
of the zone change.
In Favor Jean Johnson, Stokes & Associates, representing the Mohrenweisers
in this request. I would like to approach this more from a
mechanical standpoint. We want to assure the Board that we are
not asking for another continuance. We have made the election to
continue as applied. Having appeared before the Board and
having dealt with these situations before, I would like to make a
couple of points. At the last hearing we had, Mr. Hofert
preceeded us in a request for a zone change. The Board very
explicitly said that he was not complying with the master plan.
We came along, and the staff report said that we were complying
with the master plan, we are complying with the North Meridian
Neighborhood Plan. The Board then commented and said that well,
the master plans are not really cast in concrete, and they can be
maneuvered. With my experience when I present a plan to FRDO
staff at a pre -application meeting and suggest that we do
something that is not in compliance with the master plan, they
would say 'good luck'. We have to determine, do we have a
master plan and are we complying with it? The staff report says
'yes'. The other point I would like to bring up is that we should
not have spot zoning. That is a loose term. We are not going to
have one little square that is R-1, R-2 or R-4 or whatever. FRDO
has a real good come back on that and it is called transition
zoning. That isn't necessarily the case in our application. We
have R-3 to the south and north, RA-1 adjacent to the west, and
H-1 to the east. I am talking about consistency and the
mechanics more so than anything. I appreciate the neighborhood
concerns. However, when we create master plans, it is guidelines
for us. What am I to tell the client next week when I say 'ok
here is what you want to do, and it complies with the master plan,
but I don't think you are going to get it.' Most would go to
someone else. Nonetheless, the mechanical issue that I wanted to
address before the Board, was that the suggestion was made that
we go to an R-4. That would take care of everything. Does it
really? We only need 6,000 square feet per lot to comply with R-4
to create duplexes. That gives us 9 duplex lots or 18 family
units. So, is the Board accomplishing what they want to do by
going to a different zoning to reduce density? In addition, there
are physical constraints on the site. It is not a nice flat 2 acres
of land. There is a hillside there and only so much can be done.
We want the opportunity to best apply what we can do and we
think the end result will be minimizing density.
Richard Mohrenweiser, said the last time I was here, the Board
wanted to know what are we going to do with this property. So,
my wife and I came up with four lots, with a two story 5-plex, a
two story 4-plex, a two story triplex, and a two story duplex. I
would also like to point that over the years that we've had this
3
property, we have been able to negotial
the natural gas line, the water line
easement. Because of that, this whole
paved in here for people. We have all ti
property. We plan to run the sewer de
own, down to Meridian Road. That way,
the sewer line down and we wouldn't be
area. I still request the RA-1 zone.
e and get into this area,
and power line in our
r Underhill area was all
to utilities already on the
wn through the access I
we have the slope to run
disturbing the Underhill
No one else spoke in favor of the proposal.
The public hearing was opened to opponents of the proposal.
Vern Wyman, 507 West Arizona, said that when they moved there
in 1950 there were three houses on Arizona Street. In about 1970,
they started developing the rest of Arizona Street. From the '70's
to now, there are about 30 houses in the Underhill Addition and
Arizona Street. We figure that is a nice development in 20+ years,
and we would like to keep it that way. In the territory that Dick
is talking about, right directly behind the Underhill Addition, and
part of it is next to Meridian Pointe. Meridian Pointe, in the last
year, has built 48 family units and there 16 more to be built.
They have permission to put up a total of 64 units. With this
proposal, the maximum that can be put on this area would be 26
additional units. With what is there and what is proposed, it will
make 90 units in an area that is smaller than Arizona Street and
Underhill put together in a matter of a couple of years. Ninety
more families in that little area up there. It is a peculiar little
section of town, because of the highway going through and
Meridian going almost straight, there are a lot of pie -shaped lots
and dead ends. So, the only way out of this new addition would
be out Underhill Court, into Arizona Street and out Fifth Avenue
WN or the highway. It would put a lot more traffic on that road.
What we would propose is that it stay zoned R-3. At the last
meeting I presented a petition with 50 names of residents that
were opposed to the zone change request. (The petition is part
of the record.)
Gerianne Robbins, lives at 637 Underhill Court, which is located
near this proposal. What I would like to do is read what the RA-1
Low Density Residential Apartment zone classification allows. She
read through the list of permitted and conditional uses in the RA-
1 zone. Based on the square footage allowances in the RA-1 zone,
there could be 26 units on this approximate 2 acres. Since we
had the addition of the Meridian Pointe apartments, we have
experienced a decline in the neighborhood. The property values
have been diminished. We have had multiple problems. I will cite
problems I've had personally, and others in the neighborhood.
one neighbor has had an existing fence totally knocked over, and
kids riding bikes cutting through her property. Another
C
neighbor has had her mailbox bomb exploded, with the FBI
investigating it. She also had an attempted break-in. I recently
had a trash fire, and fortunately was alerted to it before the
bushes, fence and house were burned. A delinquent was seen
running towards those apartments. Kids in the neighborhood have
come to our doors terrified and screaming because they have been
beaten up or threatened at knifepoint. These kids are coming
from Russell School through the apartment complex. We have had
big impacts from the Meridian Pointe apartments, and it isn't even
fully built out. What we are asking is to have the integrity of
the neighborhood maintained. The original integrity of the
neighborhood is an R-3 Single Family Residential. It happens to
be a fluke that there is a big area of RA-1 adjacent, with the
associated problems. We have had testimony from Mr.
Mohrenweiser that the water drainage problem is taken care of.
With the rains we have had recently, my front yard is flooded
again. Underhill and West Arizona is flooded, again. He talked
tonight about Underhill Court being paved. When I came down
here at 7:00 p.m. I drove on a gravel, unpaved road. It wasn't
paved less than an hour ago. It was probably two summers ago
there was a major grass fire on the hillside in this area. There
was a major problem on how the Fire Department was going to
extinguish it. They were stopped at the top of Highway 93,
trying to figure out how to get this fire out. They did not have
access up Underhill Court. They were hauling hoses, and not
much water pressure, and that fire was set by children.
We must talk about the incredible traffic problem that we have.
West Arizona intersects at a very dangerous intersection. There
are several accidents there a week. It is a blind intersection, and
a real bottleneck. It is already a very big problem, let alone if
it is zoned RA-1, which would allow a maximum of 26 units. You
have to consider the amount of traffic that would involve, not
only by the residents who live there, but also those who would
visit. A big major impact. After last month's meeting, I was
curious at the developer's reluctance to take the offer the Board
was extending to them to make it an R-4 for the duplexes. I
talked with them outside and what they said was that this
gentleman has contiguous land adjacent to the area and they want
to set the precedent for continuing to get high density
development in there, and to get the maximum amount of money
out of that piece of property.
I was not clear on the testimony which referred to the flag pole
lot that is north of the cul-de-sac. My understanding is that it
is too narrow for a road.
Another impact that we have to consider is the impact on Russell
School. With the apartments that are already existing, the
5
principal has already commented that Russell School is coaxed out.
I, also, want to mention the petition which was submitted at the
last meeting with 50 signatures signed by people who are against
this project. Indeed, the managers at the Meridian Pointe complex
are also opposed to this, and their names are on the petition.
There has certainly been an increase in police calls to the
neighborhood, because of crime. There seems to be a strong
correlation between the apartments and higher density living that
is right at all of our back doors, as compared to what it was
prior to that development.
In summary, I would like to read the permitted and conditional
uses allowed in the A-3 district. [Those uses were read.] Those
of us who live in the neighborhood would like to keep it as it
exists as an R-3 zone. I would urge the Board to take into
consideration the testimony that the people in protest have made
on record, and to be fair about it.
There being no further opponents wishing to speak, the public
hearing was closed and it was opened to Board discussion.
Discussion Hash asked staff about the report under 'overcrowding of land'
it states "The application indicates the intent is to subdivide the
property into 5 lots for duplexes." Is that the basis on which
you wrote your report? Parsons responded that no, he based the
recommendation on the master plan and its allowable density under
the high density residential. The applicant did submit a rough
outline of 5 lots with the intention of constructing duplexes on
each of those lots. I put that in the report for informational
purposes. You cannot recommend approval or denial of a zone
change based on a particular development.
Hash agreed and stated that we have to look at the maximum
build -out of 26 units, since Mr. Mohrenweiser offered to present
a different proposal that was more than ten units. The other
question I have is the access through Underhill Court, what is the
average daily vehicle trips? Parsons replied that apartments
generate an average of 7 daily vehicular trips per day, which
would equal a total of 182 additional daily trips on Underhill
Court.
Carlson wanted to state a clarification that it was his
understanding of the discussion of last month, that the Master
Plan is not flexible. The Master Plan sets the maximum amount of
density that can be established in an area. But, it also has to
take into account the neighborhood considerations and topography.
It wasn't that the Master Plan was flexible, it is the application of
the designation that in all cases, you do not necessarily get the
maximum allowable under the Master Plan.
6
Lapp expanded on the discussion of the other zone change
request of last month. The request was for a zone change that
was not compatible with the Master Plan, and it was a much more
complex use than what was allowed. I do not see any relationship
with that discussion relative to this discussion. We are looking
at what is the level of density of housing in an area which is
designated by the Master Plan. But, the request is a matter of
what density we feel is suitable to that property and to that
neighborhood. I think the issue of traffic might need a little
more consideration, because of the exit difficulties from
Underhill/Arizona. An additional 182 trips per day is something
we need to consider in our action. It is a dangerous spot. I
wish there were a better solution to it. I don't know of one
without revamping the whole neighborhood. I think that is a
legitimate issue.
Kennedy disagreed with the findings of fact, because the zone
change would not promote the health and general welfare of the
particular neighborhood. As clearly stated by the people in the
neighborhood, the general welfare of the neighborhood would be
intruded upon. It would not promote their general welfare to
have a density of 26 additional families in that area. It should
not create an undue hardship on the neighborhood. I believe that
it certainly would create an undue hardship with regards to the
roads system in the area. The same is true with regards to the
next item pertaining to congestion in the streets. It states that
with a duplex development, it may require two access points, but
I don't see that we actually have the space allowed for two access
points and don't see that it will alleviate the true problem that
neighborhood will have from a development of that size in that
area. I think that as they have clearly indicated there is safety
issues that we have to be concerned about with regards to fire,
and access to the land. I think that we can look at the map of
the zoning in the area and see that R-3 is clearly what is
surrounding and was the intent of the area, and has been the
intent of the area all along. At this point, there is no way that
I could support an RA-1 zone for that 2 acre site. I believe R-
3 is appropriate and would favor rewriting the statutory criteria
to bring that forward.
Hodgeboom felt that the project has some merit, but I really do
have concerns about that access. If I lived in that neighborhood,
I couldn't support it either, based on the traffic and disruption
of the residents that already live there. There is no other access
available.
Conner recalled that when we talked about Meridian Pointe, the
issue from the school standpoint was also a safety issue.
F
Hash agreed with the discussion. I wish there was something the
applicant wished to do with the property other than to proceed
with the potentially 'highest and best use', but that doesn't
necessarily mean the highest and best for everyone involved.
Knowing the problems that the neighbors in the Underhill
Subdivision have had and the ongoing question of Meridian Pointe,
the access issue is certainly a big factor there. We have to
review the zone change independent of any development proposal.
Whether Mr. Mohrenweiser or someone else develops it, we have to
look at the maximum potential of 26 units on the site with the
requested zone change. I cannot support it. I think the issue
of children's safety to and from schools is a big factor, as well as
the sheer impact on the schools. We have to note that a negative
impact will be expected, as now they are bussing children
everywhere. They do not get into their neighborhood school any
longer. I cannot support the RA-1 zone. I am not in favor of
forwarding a zone change which the applicant has not requested.
It was the general consensus of the Board that the RA-1 zone
request be denied. The Board discussed the procedure for
sending a recommendation to City Council stating their desire to
deny the RA-1 zone change request.
Motion Carlson moved to forward a recommendation to City Council for
denial of the zone change request from R-3 to RA-1 and rewrite
the findings of fact in FRDO report #KZC-95-3. Lopp seconded.
The Board proceeded through the rewrite of the findings of fact
in report #KZC-95-03.
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, more specifically the North Meridian Neighborhood Plan, adopted in 1994.
According to the Neighborhood Plan, the property is designated for "High Density
Residential". This request is considered in general conformance with the Master
Plan. a e#ecl: However, the property is better suited as a transition area
between the single family residential and anticipated high density residential,
because of problems associated with the existing high density residential development
that is occurring in the area.
WILL THE REQUESTED ZONE SECURE SAFETY FROM FIRE. PANIC AND OTHER DANGERS?
8
WILL THE RE!QUESTED ZONE SECURE SAFETY FROM FIRE PANIC AND OTHER DANGERS?
Development within the RA-1 zone is 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. T
sftb n-ire-- ge-' a-r-sc -ever .--lr -sue- ie
a 'etr-
One limitation to developing this property would be the topographic constraints.
-te- en+. The cross
slope of the property is approximately 18%. Another limitation is the access, only a
single point of access is available to service the property. This is Underhill Court
where it extends to the north. This area (Underhill) is in essence one cul-de-sac.
Because of the designated access, this zone change would not secure safety from
fire, panic and other dangers.
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 Master Plan.
-elaes-supper-t4te--rep e . The density of this zone would
intrude on the health or general welfare of this particular neighborhood. The
surrounding uses are earraidered not compatible with the proposed zoning
classification.
WILL THE REQUESTED ZONE CHANGE PREVENT THE OVERCROWDING OF LAND?
Lopp pointed out that one of the issues was that adequate
infrastructure was not there. The access out of Underhill is a
significant limiting factor. The Board made the following finding:
Overcrowding of land can occur when development out -paces or exceeds the
environmental or service limitations of the property. Adequate infrastructure is not
in place in the area to accommodate the land uses allowed in the requested zone.
Access is through a single family neighborhood. A parcel of 1.8 acres could
potentially be developed with 26 units.however-beeart�se-�€-® let�ts
an4-eeeess, eve - otdxl--be- -tom-lac-subst erAieliy-less.--T*e- e$#iom
ha# tc�-sicbiaritle--#ire- rt�--irrto-s-lots-#or-elttts3E- �ltis
ice--mare-re---ret-�rEi--tuts:
WILL THE REQUESTED - ZONE AVOID UNDUE CONCENTRATION OF PEOPLE?
Concentration of people is a function of land use. Development will certainly occur
on this site if the zone change is approved. The uses and density associated with
the RA-1 zoning designation anticipate a certain concentration of people and would
shetrl&-iko4 create a undue hardship on the neighborhood with the addition of 26
units on 1.8 acres.
9
IS T E RE UE TED ZONE DESIGNED TO LESSEN CONGESTION IN THE STREET AND
FACILITATE THE ADEQUATE PROVISION OF TRANSPORTATION, WATER, SEWER, SCHOOLS.
,ftKS An -OTHER PUBLIC REQUIREMENTS?
tlte- .�.
Based on the potential 26 unit development, this would result in ovgr 182
vehicular tries per day on what is essentially a very lone cul-de-sac. The Underhill
Court north access was expected to serve as a street to this property and also was
expected to serve as access north of the subject property. The new Neighborhood
Plan for this area amended this concept to limit access only to the immediate north,
the subject property. The development constraints of the RA-1 zone are designed
to lesson congestion in the streets for any development by requiring a conditional
use permit for development over a duplex, which may require two access points.
There is no potential for two access points, and the Master Plan sRegocally indicated
ghat there would be no through access. When the Neighborhood Plan was adopted,
access from this street out to Meridian Road was specifically excluded. Additional
demands for transportation, water, and sewer collection as a result of development
of the property would be evaluated pursuant to individual development proposals.
Adequate services exist in the area. The residential nature of this zone would
impact schools and parks. Ne A significant impact is expected.
ES _THE REQUESTED ZONING GIVE REASONABLE CONSIDERATION_ TO THE CHARACTER
QE THIS DISTRICT?
Discussion followed on the adoption of a conditional use permit for
Meridian Pointe. At that time, one of the main issues was that the
access was off Meridian. Lapp stated that this proposal directly impacts
this neighborhood because of the traffic. We need to make the
connection that this area is a continuation of the R-3 neighborhood and
not an extension of the RA-1 which is Meridian Pointe. Hash proposed
striking the entire finding and to replace as follows:
The requested zoning, while__ potentially would provide for affordable housing in
Kalispell, is not necessarily compatible with the property immediately to the south,
and the density proposed offers no buffering from single family residential to
nothing north of the Underhill Addition.
WOULD THE PROPOSED ZONING CONSERVE THE VALUE OF THE BUILDINGS?
The property is currently vacant and would be developed into residential uses. A
change to the RA-1 zone would sheiA&-rr&t significantly impact, erode, or devalue the
neighborhood beyond the type of uses that are currently allowed or that exist to the
south, those being single family residential. *-this-
-t,�-be de�r�eped
ag-etratt -e-aentiened-t�se- permit--�rould-be--reequik-�r�rselt-eetrld -buffet -the
side-- rm}ly- nt--tor-He--sotrt-h:
10
Motion The motion by Carlson, second by Lopp was restated to recommend
that the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning
Commission adopt these findings of fact and forward a
recommendation to City Council for denial of the requested zone
change. On a roll call vote Hodgeboom, Sanders, Kennedy,
Carlson, Lopp, Conner and Hash voted aye. The motion carried
unanimously in favor of recommending denial of the zone change
request.
OLD BUSINESS The issue brought up regarding fencing behind the Meridian
Pointe apartment complex was discussed in light of the
considerable public testimony pertaining to the increase in
trespass and crime associated with the high density development.
Brian Wood, Zoning Administrator for the City of Kalispell
responded that either fencing or landscape screening was
required under the conditions of the permit, and he will check on
the specific terms of the conditional use permit. Drainage in the
area is another issue of concern.
NEW BUSINESS There are four items on the September agenda, and the deadline
for applications has not closed. It was noted that Robert Lapp
and Fred Hodgeboom will not be in attendance for the September
meeting.
Kennedy announced that there was an opening on the City of
Kalispell Solid Waste Board. Lauren Granmo resigned from the
Board to serve as Acting Director for the Solid Waste District. A
city representative is needed on the Board and interested persons
should submia letter of interest to Mayor Rauthe.
ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at
8:25 p.m.
Following the meeting a workshop/introduction of the revised
Kalispell Subdivision Regulations was held.
Therese Fox Hash, President
1
APPROVED: 60
11
Secretary