08. Resolution 4246 - Woods Annexation & Zone ChangeRESOLUTION NO. 4246
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 AS LOT 2 OF INSTENESS ADDITION IN THE NE1/4 OF
SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 28 NORTH, RANGE 21 WEST, P.M.M. FLATHEAD
COUNTY, MONTANA, TO BE KNOWN AS WOODS ADDITION NO. 270; TO ZONE
SAID PROPERTY SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL, R-1, TO AMEND THE CITY ZONING
MAP ACCORDINGLY AND TO DECLARE AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Kalispell has received a petition from
Ira and Diane Woods, the owners of the property described as Lot 2
of Insteness Addition in the NE1/4 of Section 18, T28N, R21W,
P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana, requesting that the City of
Kalispell annex the territory into the City, and
WHEREAS, the Flathead Regional Development Office has made a
report on Woods Addition No. 270, City Zone Request, #KA-95-10,
dated November 7, 1995, 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 Suburban Residential, R-1, 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
as "Urban Residential". R-1 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. There would be no
net increase in density from County R-1 to City R-1. If
the property is subdivided/developed it would be in a
manner that is consistent with the existing City and
County R-1 zone in the area. In addition, the Master
Plan for this area calls for this property to be
developed with R-1 type development. The most
1
significant impact would be the required upgrade to the
existing easement to allow this property to be developed
beyond the one single family dwelling. This would be
more thoroughly addressed at the time of subdivision. No
significant negative impact is expected.
Will the Requested Zone Secure Safety from Fire, Panic
and Other Dancers?
Development within this zone is subject to development
standards including: lot coverage, maximum building
height, and the provision of off-street parking. Any
development of the property is subject to review by the
City, 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.
In addition, Sunnyside Drive is a through street which
provides access to this area with direct access to the
core of Kalispell.
The majority of the property requesting City zoning is in
the designated 100-year floodplain. Development
constraints of the floodplain severely limit the type of
structures that can be developed. Whether the property
is developed in the City or the County the floodplain
would still exist and be governed by the same
regulations.
No significant negative impact is expected.
Will the Requested Change Promote the Health and General
Welfare?
The 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-1 would have
little or no impact. Any traffic generation that the
proposed change allows would be mitigated at the time of
development. Any impact to stormwater runoff, sewers,
and water would also be addressed at the time of specific
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. 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,
clear vision setback, roadway improvements, etc.) would
ensure that light and air are adequately provided. Any
development beyond one single family residence would
require approval of a subdivision. No significant
negative impact is expected.
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, zoning, building, and
floodplain regulations control the intensity requirements
that a property can be developed with. Adequate
infrastructure is in place in the area 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?
gEr Concentration of people relates to the land use permitted
by a particular zone. The proposed change would have
little unexpected impact on 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 zone and its
regulations would ensure 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, or
can be provided, in the vicinity which should be able to
serve development of this property. Schools and parks
should not be any more impacted under the existing County
zone than would be under the proposed City zone. No
significant negative impact is expected.
3
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-1 zone because of availability of services
and access. The property is of adequate size for the
type of uses permitted and conditionally allowed in the
proposed zone. No significant negative impact is
expected.
Does the Requested Zoning Give Reasonable Consideration
to the Character of this District?
The property in question is well suited for the type
development anticipated under the requested zone because
of the topography, access, regional location, access to
schools, access to urban services, and size of the
property. In addition, the Master Plan for the area
anticipates this type of zone in this area. 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-1 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 as this is a
residential zone. No significant negative impact is
expected.
Will the Requested Zone Change Encourage the Most
Appropriate Use of the Land Throughout the Jurisdiction?
Appropriateness of a zone is determined by the Kalispell
City -County Master Plari. The Plan and the existing
-zoning classifications in the area identify this area for
the uses permitted within the requested zone. Therefore,
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 "A" and thereby made
4
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 Woods Addition No. 270, subject to
annexation, including water, sewer, storm drainage, streets,
garbage collection, police protection and fire protection, and
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, Woods Addition No. 270 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 as Lot 2, Insteness Subdivision in
the NE1/4 of Section 19, T28N, R21W, P.M.M., Flathead
County, Montana, 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
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 Suburban Residential, R-1.
k,
SECTION IV. This Resolution shall be effective 30 days
from and after its passage by the City Council.
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
C
Douglas D. Rauthe, Mayor
Flathead Regional Development Bice
723 5th Avenue East - Room 414
Kalispell, Montana 59901
Phone: (406) 758-5980
November 22, 1995 Fax: (406) 758-5781
Bruce Williams, City Manager
City of Kalispell
P.O. Drawer 1997
Kalispell, MT 59901
Re: Recommendation of Zoning for Woods Addition No. 270
Dear Bruce:
The Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission met on November 14, 1995, and
held a public hearing on the following agenda item:
A request by Ira and Gene Woods, for annexation to the City of Kalispell with an
initial zoning classification of R-1, Suburban Residential. The property is known as
Lot 2, Insteness Subdivision in the NE'/a of Section 19, Township 28 North, Range
21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana. The property is located
approximately 200 feet south of Sunnyside Drive where 6th Avenue West ends.
John Parsons, Senior Planner, reviewed the statutory criteria for zoning and recommended the zoning
f classification of R-1 upon annexation of the property be granted. The applicant spoke in favor of
the requested zone upon annexation; no one spoke in opposition. After adopting the findings of fact
contained in FRDO report #KA-95-10 the Board, acting as the Zoning Commission, voted
unanimously to recommend that the requested R-1 zone be granted upon annexation of the subject
property.
This recommendation for zoning is forwarded to the City Council for 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 FRDO if you have any questions.
Respectfully submitted,
ISPELL CITY-f �� C
OUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING
a Fox Hash
President
TFH/JJP/dh
Attachments: FRDO Report #KA-95-10 & Planning Board Packet
Minutes of 11/14/95 meeting forwarded separately
c. w/o att: Ira and Diane Woods, 604 Sunnyside Dr., Kalsipell, MT 59901
...1995\KA95-10.270 Providing Community Planning Assistance To:
* Flathead County * City of Columbia Falls * City of Kalispell * City of Whitefish
WOODS ADDITION NO. 270 - CITY ZONE REQUEST
R-1 (COUNTY) TO R-1 (CITY)
FRDO CITY ZONE REPORT NKA-95-10
NOVEMBER 7, 1995
Ira and Diane Woods have petitioned for annexation of a tract of land into the city limits of
Kalispell. This is a report to the Kalispell City -County Zoning Commission and Kalispell City
Council. This report evaluates the assignment of a City zoning classification as it relates to
annexation in accordance with Section 27.03.010(4) of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. The
Commission will hold a public hearing on November 14, 1995, beginning at 7:00 pm in the
Council Chambers, City Hall, 312-1st Avenue East and forward their recommendation to the
City Council for final action.
PROPOSED ZONING CLASSIFICATION
This petition is for a zoning classification of R-1 (Suburban Residential). Presently, the
property is zoned County R-1 (Suburban Residential), under the Flathead County Zoning
Regulations. The Kalispell Zoning Ordinance defines the intent of the R-1 Classification as
follows:
A transitional district to provide for estate -type residential development and for
the performance of limited agricultural activities. This district would normally
be located in rural areas and serve as a buffer between urban and unlimited
agricultural uses. These areas are generally beyond the service area of city
municipal sewer and water facilities.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
PETITIONER:
Ira Woods
604 Sunnyside Drive
Kalispell, MT 59901
SIZE AND LOCATION:
The property is approximately 4.5 acres located on the south side of Kalispell, approximately
200 feet south of Sunnyside Drive where 6th Avenue West ends. This site is Lot 2 of
Insteness Addition in the NE 1/4 of Section 19, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M.,
Flathead County, Montana.
1
LAND USE AND ZONING:
The property is currently vacant and zoned County R-1. North is zoned City R-1 and has a
house on it; south, east and west is zoned County R-1 and is vacant or used for pasture.
Sunnyside Drive is a designated collector developed with two paved lanes and provides access
to a 30 foot easement across the east side of Lot 1, Insteness Addition, to the subject property.
AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC SERVICES:
City services are available in and to the general area. A separately prepared "Extension of
Services Plan" adopted on November 6, 1995 under Resolution 94241, discusses the provision
of public services to areas to be annexed. Attached is a "Mini" Extension of Services Plan for
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 as "Urban
Residential". R-1 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. There would be no net increase
in density from County R-1 to City R-1. If the property is subdivided/developed it would be
in a manner that is consistent with the existing City and County R-1 zone in the area. In
addition, the Master Plan for this area calls for this property to be developed with R-1 type
development. The most significant impact would be the any required upgrade to the existing
easement to allow this property to be developed beyond the one single family dwelling. This
would be more thoroughly addressed at the time of subdivision. No significant negative impact
is expected.
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. Any development of the
property is subject to review by the City, and requires the issuance of building, plumbing, and
2
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, Sunnyside
Drive is a through street which provides access to this area with direct access to the core of
Kalispell.
The majority of the property requesting City zoning is in the designated 100-year floodplain.
Development constraints of the floodplain severely limit the type of structures that can be
developed. Whether the property is developed in the City or the County the floodplain would
still exist and be governed by the same regulations.
No significant negative impact is expected.
Will The Requested Change Promote The Health And General Welfare?
The 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-1 would have little or no
impact. Any traffic generation that the proposed change allows would be mitigated at the time
of development. Any impact to stormwater runoff, sewers, and water would also be addressed
at the time of specific development proposals.
The zoning ordinance provides a mechanism for public input and review for all zone requests.
This process offers an opportunity to ensure that any changes to the Official Zoning Map are
t done in the general public interest. 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, clear vision setback, roadway improvements, etc.) would ensure that light and air
are adequately provided. Any development beyond one single family residence would require
approval of a subdivision. No significant negative impact is expected.
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, zoning, building, and floodplain
regulations control the intensity requirements that a property can be developed with. Adequate
infrastructure is in place in the area 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.
k]
Will The Requested Zone Avoid Undue Concentration Of People?
Concentration of people relates to the land use permitted by a particular zone. The proposed
change would have little unexpected impact on 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 zone and its regulations
would ensure that the site is properly developed. No significant negative impact is expected.
Will The Requested Zone Facilitate The Adequate Provision Of Transpartation. Water Sewer
Schools, Parks And Other Public Reguirements?
The additional demands for transportation, water, and sewer will be evaluated pursuant to
individual development proposals; existing infrastructure exists, or can be provided, in the
vicinity which should be able to serve development of this property. Schools and parks should
not be any more impacted under the existing County zone than would be under the proposed
City zone. 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-1 zone because of
availability of services and access. The property is of adequate size for the type of uses
permitted and conditionally allowed in the proposed zone. No significant negative impact is
expected.
Does The Requested Zoning Give Reasonable Consideration To The Character Of This
District
The property in question is well suited for the type development anticipated under the
requested zone because of the topography, access, regional location, access to schools, access
to urban services, and size of the property. In addition, the Master Plan for the area anticipates
this type of zone in this area. 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-1 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 as this is a residential zone. No significant negative
impact is expected.
4
Will The Requested Zone Change Encourage The Most Appropriate Use Of The Land
Throughout The Jurisdiction?
Appropriateness of a zone is determined by the Kalispell City -County Master Plan. The Plan
and the existing zoning classifications in the area identify this area for the uses permitted
within the requested zone. Therefore, the change would encourage the most appropriate use
of the land. No significant negative impact is expected.
The request complies with the Master Plan, conforms to adjacent zoning, supports coordinated
development by maintaining the same zone classification, and would not unduly impact
adjoining services or facilities.
RECOMMENDATION
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 upon annexation.
F:1...1KA9510ES. WDS
4_ 5
WOODS ADDITION NO. 270 ANNEXATION
EXTENSION OF SERVICES PLAN
ADDENDUM TO CITY RESOLUTION #4241
PREPARED BY THE
FLATHEAD REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICE
NOVEMBER 7, 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 November 6, 1989
(Resolution #4241). This broad -based extension of services plan together with this "mini -plan"
comprise the Extension of Services Plan for the Woods Addition No. 270 annexation.
EXISTING SERVICES:
Water: The City has an eight inch water main in Sunnyside Drive. This main should have
sufficient capacity to serve this site.
Sewer: The City has an eight sewer main in Sunnyside Drive and should have sufficient
capacity to serve this site. Existing septic needs are met by onsite disposal methods.
Storm Drainage: No storm drain system exists in the area.
Streets: Sunnyside Drive is developed as a two lane street with access to the City core.
Garbage Collection: Available by contract from private companies not currently utilized.
Police Protection: Currently the Flathead County Sheriff's Department.
Fire Protection: Smith Valley Fire Department.
7
Water: Water supply exists in Sunnyside Drive. If, upon development of this property, this
main is not of sufficient capacity to serve the development, a water main must be extended to
connect with a main of sufficient capacity to serve this property or another alternative be
installed. Capacity and any extensions would be evaluated at the review stage of any
development permit.
Sewer: Sewer exists in Sunnyside Drive. Currently, septic systems are used in this area. A
service main would have to be extended the this property to serve this lot. If upon
development of this property, the existing main is not of sufficient capacity or depth to serve
development, a sewer main or lift station must be provided to connect with a main of sufficient
capacity to serve this property or another alternative be installed. Capacity and any extensions
would be evaluated at the review stage of any development permit.
Storm Drainage; Retention and/or disposal of storm water will be evaluated during the review
phase of any proposed development. Storm drainage would be handled onsite at the time of
development.
Streets: Sunnyside Drive is a two lane road and of sufficient size to accommodate additional
traffic loads development of this site would produce. The site at this time could be developed
with one single family residence with access provided by a 30 easement from Sunnyside Drive.
Development beyond a single family residence would require subdivision approval, at that time
right-of-way would be required to be dedicated; current standards are 60 feet.
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
substantially the 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. The general source of money to extend these types 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 extension of water mains/lines, sewer mains/lines,
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 ... \KA9510ES.WDS
8
KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING
NOVEMBER 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 7:05
p.m. by President Therese Hash. Board members present were Milt
Carlson, Walter Bahr, Robert Sanders, Fred Hodgeboom, Bob Lopp,
Pam Kennedy, Mike Fraser and Therese Hash. Mike Conner was
absent (excused). John Parsons, Senior Planner represented the
Flathead Regional Development Office. Brian Wood, Zoning
Administrator, represented the City of Kalispell. There were
approximately 12 people in the audience.
APPROVAL OF The minutes of the September 12, 1995 meeting were approved as
MINUTES submitted on a motion by Bahr, second by Carlson. All members
present voted aye.
TETON TERRACE Hash introduced a request by the City of Kalispell for Preliminary
PRELIMINARY Plat approval and a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Cluster
PLAT & Subdivision. The project is to be known as Teton Terrace and will
CONDITIONAL contain 26 townhouse lots. The project will utilize a two -unit and
USE PERMIT three -unit construction design intended for single family
ownership. There will be four buildings constructed with the 3-
unit design and seven buildings constructed using the 2-unit
design. Access would be from Hawthorne Avenue to Teton Court
and Iris Court; the project would be connected to City water and
sewer.
Mike Fraser declared a conflict of interest and excused himself
from the Board on this matter.
Staff Report Parsons gave a detailed presentation of Preliminary Plat report
#KPP-95-04, and Conditional Use report #KCU-95-05. Based on
evaluation of the proposal in accordance with the necessary
review criteria, staff recommended approval of the conditional use
permit and preliminary plat for Teton Terrace, subject to 16
conditions. Two letters were received, one from the Flathead
County Superintendent of Schools, and one from the Kalispell
School District, which were submitted to Board members. Both
letters indicate that the schools are overcrowded at various levels.
Handouts were submitted showing elevations of the townhomes, and
a letter from Jerry Begg, adjoining property owner, stating his
support of the project.
Questions Hash questioned the cash in lieu of parkland fees. Parsons
explained that it was calculated to be 11% of of the market value
of $140,000, which equals $15,400.
Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the project.
In Favor Susan Moyer, representing the City of Kalispell, spoke in favor of
this project. I have been before this Board with the South
Woodland project, which is the other half of a 44-unit home
ownership project the City of Kalispell is actively involved with,
and for which we have won a million dollars in grants to help to
get the working class people into home ownership. I speak in
favor of this, not only because it is my project, but there is a
reduction in density from the previous plat known as Esperanza.
It is much more aesthetically pleasing. We intend to do a great
deal of landscaping with clumps of trees and berming. What we
want is a community feel. When we first went before the Kalispell
Site Review Committee, we did not want to punch this street
through, as it is shown, as there are two streets immediately to
the south of what will be Teton Avenue, that will connect with the
Begg property. However, we bowed to the wishes of the Site
Reveiw Committee. What we are after here is a quality subdivision
that remains affordable to the people that are the backbone of our
community, the single parents, young couples starting out. These
are starter homes. When the school district complains about the
impacts to the schools, all I can say is it will impact less than the
original plat as Esperanza, because we have reduced the number
of lots.
,- I am shocked at the recommendation for the payment of cash in
lieu of parkland. I had a long discussion with Mike Baker. He
did not want to see a park incorporated into this project that the
City would be responsible for, as there are tennis courts, and
parks in the vicinity. It was our wish, as the developer of the
project, to put the tot playground in there. I have entered into
this project with the idea of $4,000-$5,000 for the payment in lieu.
• We are providing sidewalks on both sides, curbs and gutters,
street lights. This is a heavy impact. I think we have gone
• overboard. We didn't have to even consider the tot lot. Again,
I argue that this project has been impacted by the fact that we
were denied our high density zone change on South Woodland. We
have scrambled to take that impact, which cost $530,000 by being
driven to a second site to do the remaining units. Every dollar
that the City spends on this project, impacts the percentage of
income that people will be able to qualify for. When you are
dealing with amortization tables, $500-$1,000 makes a difference in
what people can afford.
I take you back to The Courtyard, that the City did as its first
major housing undertaking. All I can do is assure you that we
will have an equally quality development. This is targeted to low
income working people. Every dollar I can save on it allows me
to get somebody that much lower down the income scale into home
ownership.
Doug Kaufman, Thomas, Dean & Hoskins, representing the
developer, the City of Kalispell, addressed the cash in lieu of
parkland, as well. By definition, I understand that cash in lieu
of parkland is calculated on the lot acreage, only, excluding roads
and common area. If we take the approximate lot area at 1.5
acres, which would be at an appraised value of roughly $52,500.
Therefore, 11% of that amount is about $5,775. We feel that this
amount for cash in lieu is substantially more in keeping with the
entire project.
There were no other proponents for the project. The public
hearing was opened to opposition. No one spoke in opposition to
the proposal. The public comment portion was closed and the
hearing opened to Board deliberation.
Discussion Lopp asked where the storm water goes once it leaves this
property? The drainage plan was explained. He asked what the
rationale was for the 50' ROW. This is a City project and ought
to be meeting all the standards the City requires, in the Kalispell
Subdivision Regulations, which will be discussed after the meeting.
The problem that this creates, is that when Mr. Begg's property
comes before us for a development proposal, we can't require him
to put 60' ROW in, because the City has a 50' ROW. How do you
justify that?
Parsons replied that it was justified by the City, based on the
concept that there are two other streets accessing Hawthorn
Avenue to the Begg property. When this project first came in, it
was considered that Teton Avenue be a cul-de-sac, and not go
through, at all. The City was willing to grant the 50' ROW to get
the street through to the west.
Lopp had a real problem with that, because we require the private
developer to go 60', which is required in the subdivision
regulations. How can the City have only 50' ROW in their own
subdivisions? I have a problem being in favor of this proposal,
even though it is well planned and has wonderful features, but
when we do not require of ourselves that which we require from
the private sector, I have a real problem.
The Board asked Mr. Wood to address the issue.
Wood said that Parsons summed it up very well. It was a decision
that was endorsed by the City Engineer. It was discussed, at
length, at the Site Review, with the full understanding that Mr.
Begg would probably request, and expect, a variance.
Parsons said that the other option is having the street be a cul-
de-sac, which could be a lesser ROW, because they are not
intended to create through traffic. Cul-de-sacs create a
3
neighborhood environment, and the only traffic expected would be
the residents.
Lopp asked if the change was due to economic reasons? Or was
it due to design constraints for the number of housing units?
Parsons stated that Esperanza had a 60' ROW for 19 lots, with 38
units. I wish Bob Babb was here, but he is not. I don't think
there is an adequate answer to your question.
Wood pointed out that the loop road in the Esperanza Subdivision
was less than 60 feet.
Parsons reminded the Board that the road for Esperanza came in
at Teton Avenue and stubbed out at the Begg property, as it does
for this subdivision. It also had an interior loop road, Iris Court,
which was required to be 50 feet, as it was not anticipated to
carry through traffic. It was required to be stubbed out at a 40'
ROW to the north.
Carlson commented that since Teton and Yellowstone are 50' and
go into Hawthorn, that as subsequent development goes to the
west, the main access will be on 60' ROW to Two Mile and Liberty.
Parsons explained that primarily for the development of the Begg
property, you are looking at the two roads off Hawthorn, plus
fir.. Teton, and then Two Mile Drive. There are plenty of accesses
there if one was to be eliminated or a reduction in the ROW. It
wouldn't be a great impact, other than when Begg came in and
asks for 50 feet.
Kennedy asked Parsons to address the engineer's statement
• regarding the cash in lieu of parkland fee.
Parsons explained that on a typical subdivision, the way you have
the entire property subdivided out into lots and streets, you
could subtract out as a percentage, the streets, leaving the total
amount of acreage to be developed into lots, using that
percentage, and 11%, because it is an urban density development
for the parkland dedication. I would agree that the streets
should be taken out, but not the common area. No credit is
given for the tot -lot, because it is not considered public parkland
for the use of the general public. State law has changed as of
October 1, 1995, however, this particular development is required
to contribute 11%, because it is an urban density development.
Lopp again referred to the updated Kalispell Subdivision
Regulations, pertaining to parkland dedication and felt it should
be discussed during the workshop.
4
Hash asked about the landscaping plan.
Susan Moyer explained that the landscaping plan is being
developed. It is their intention to provide as much privacy and
screening as possible, with berming, trees and other plantings.
What we do with landscaping will be directly related to other fees
we have to absorb in this project. I would prefer to have as
much landscaping, as possible, and buffer it from the surrounding
areas. If we have to pay the cash in lieu fee for parks, we won't
have the money to put into quality landscaping. We don't have
a lot of land to work with. We have tried to structure the units
on the site so that there is privacy.
Hash referred to Meridian Pointe, which is a much higher density
than this development. The neighborhood was quite concerned
and those residents have a very vehement complaint about the
fact there is no fencing or landscaping, and problems they have
experienced from the development. Since this development adjoins
a residential area, I will express those concerns.
Parsons pointed out that Meridian Pointe is very different than
what is proposed here. Meridian Pointe is a rental apartment
complex. This is a subdivision, owner -occupied townhouse
development. Meridian Pointe has very large, imposing buildings
with a lot of units.
Parsons pointed out that in reviewing the parkland dedication
criteria, it lists the lands not appropriate for park purposes. In
this instance, an area less than two acres in size.
Kennedy asked if the 11% was required by state law, or can the
Board waive or reduce the fee?
Parsons answered that state law allows you to require 11%. You
cannot exceed 11%, and may waive or reduce the fee.
Kennedy calculated that the streets were 21%, subtracted from the
total market value, 11% of which would equal $12,166 for parkland
fees. She believes this is a quality subdivision and one which the
city is in dire need of. It is also something that City Council
needs to finish the contracts, and complete projects that we have
on the Board for the number of housing units that are needed in
our area. We need the low income housing. I clearly believe that
if 60' ROW were possible, it would be designed for 60' ROW. As
long as we know that it has the City Engineer's blessing, and that
the knowledge that the adjacent property will also request the
same 50' ROW variance, I think we need to go forward with it,
rather than try to redesign the project and end up losing
housing units. We cannot afford to lose the contract to put in a
certain number of housing units. In order to compare contracts,
the City of Kalispell needs to move on. This is in conjunction
with the Woodland Court project with the single family homes.
This is a quality design, with a feel of open space, and these will
be be private ownership and in that regard, cannot be compared
to Meridian Pointe. The City will do the best it can to make this
development look its best, or the City will take a lot of heat in
this community. Any costs borne will be passed down to potential
buyers, and must be considered.
Hash agreed that this was a worthwhile project, but had a
problem with the City asking for a variance from its own
requirements. It is difficult as a public official, my role as an
attorney, and a court official, to be exempted from the very
requirements we wish to impose on others. Albeit, it is for a
marvelous reason. So are many other developments we have
heard. We have many, many developers asking us for a reduction
in one requirement or another for the very same reason that
higher expenses on their part, will impact their ability to make
lower priced homes for the subsequent consumer. In many of
those cases, we have held fast to the particular requirement.
Hodgeboom also felt that the City should be held to the same
requirements as far as payment of cash in lieu, just like any
other developer. Those costs get handed down, no matter who
develops it, whether it is the City or someone else. I think it is
fair to stick with that requirement. I feel that the road standard
is designed that the reduction in ROW will not effect the use of
the road. It will still be a fine road and a connection that the
adjacent properties can develop. I can support the 50` ROW
variance, but not the parkland variance request.
Motion Kennedy made the motion that the City County Planning Board
adopt FRDO preliminary plat report #KPP-95-04, and conditional
use report #KCU-95-05 as findings of fact, and forward a
• favorable recommendation to City Council to grant the conditional
use permit and approve the preliminary plat for Teton Terrace
subject to the 16 conditions, with #9 modified to read $12.166 be
paid as cash in lieu to the City of Kalispell for parkland. Bahr
seconded. On a roll call vote Bahr, Carlson, Hodgeboom, Kennedy,
Sanders and Hash voted aye. Lapp voted no. Fraser abstained
from voting. The motion carried on a 6-1-1 vote.
Fraser returned to the Board.
MILLER The next agenda item was introduced on a request by Al Miller,
ANNEXATION & et al, for annexation to the City of Kalispell with an initial zoning
ZONE CHANGE classification of I-1, Light Industrial. The properties are currently
COUNTY I-1 Flathead County I-1, Light Industrial, R-1 Suburban Residential,
TO CITY I-1 and B-2 General Business. The annexation is located approximately
6
200 feet east of US Highway 93 on the south side of Kelly Road.
Staff Report Parsons presented report #KA-95-11. Based on the review of the
necessary criteria for evaluation of a zone change, staff
recommended the request for an I-1 zone classification upon
annexation into the City, be sent to City Council with a favorable
recommendation.
Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the requested
zone upon annexation.
In Favor Al Miller, one of the applicants, spoke in favor of the I-1 zone
calssification upon annexation into the City. They would like to
take advantage of the city services. He said they are not
changing anything on the site, except, at our own expense, we
have extended the sewer system from South Woodland Avenue to
the Pepsi Cola building.
No one else spoke in favor. The public hearing was opened to
opponents of the requested zone classification upon annexation.
Opposition Carolyn Wirt, Big Sky Properties, an adjacent property owner,
wanted clarification on whether her property was included in the
request for annexation. Staff told her that it was not. She was
not opposed to Miller's request.
A There being no further public comment, the public hearing was
closed and it was opened to Board discussion.
Discussion The Board clarified that the majority of the subject property was
already zoned I-1 in the County, but is a split zone. Fraser
commented that the requested zone is in substantial compliance
with the Master Plan, and that the uses on the property already
exist next to the residential area to the east.
The Board expressed concern about the extension of the I-1 zone
classification into the R-1 zone. Staff read through the permitted
uses in the I-1 zone, which are similar in the county and city.
It was pointed out that the current County I-1 zone exists
adjacent to R-5 to the east and R-1 to the south. The applicant
is requesting that the property with split zones of B-2, I-1 and
R-1 in the County be changed to City I-1.
The applicant informed the Board that the southern portion of his
property, which is currently County R-1, is a slough, and could
not be developed.
Motion Lopp moved to adopt report #KA-95-11 as findings of fact and
forward a positive recommendation to City Council for the
requested I-1 zone upon annexation. Kennedy seconded. On a
7
roll call vote all members present voted aye. The motion carried
on a 8-0 vote in favor.
WOODS The next item was a request by Ira Gene and Diane Woods, for
ANNEXATION & annexation to the City of Kalispell with an initial zoning
ZONE CHANGE / classification of R-1, Suburban Residential. The property is known
COUNTY R-1 TO as Lot 2, Insteness Subdivision in the NE4 of Section 19, Township
CITY R-1 28 North, Range 21 West, P1M.M., Flathead County, Montana. The
property is located approximately 200 feet south of Sunnyside
Drive where 6th Avenue West ends.
Staff Report Parsons gave a presentation of report #KA-95-10. The request for
an R-1 zoning classification upon annexation into the City of
Kalispell meets all the necessary criteria for a zone change, and
it is recommended for approval.
Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the request.
In Favor Ira Woods, the property owner/applicant, said that he owns about
2.5 acres that he wants to annex into the city. With the
development that has occurred on the other side of Ashley Creek
to the south and west are city property, and my parcel is
becoming an island. I would like to run city services to the
parcel. My intention is build a house and keep the zoning the
same as it is in the county. More than 70% is in the floodplain
and I intend to keep that as a wildlife corridor for Ashley Creek.
No one else spoke either in favor or in opposition to the
requested zone classification. The public hearing was closed and
it was opened to Board discussion.
Discussion The Board commended the Woods for leaving things as they are,
. as it is rare that someone wants to maintain the integrity of
natural areas.
Motion Fraser moved to adopt FRDO report #KA-95-10 as findings of fact
and the recommendation therein for approval of the zone
classification of R-1 upon annexation. Lopp seconded. On a roll
call vote Hodgeboom, Kennedy, Fraser, Carlson, Bahr, Sanders,
Lopp and Hash voted aye. The motion carried unanimously in
favor of the Woods' request for an R-1 zone classification upon
annexation into the City of Kalispell.
WALLACE The next item was introduced on a request by Chris and Libby
ZONE CHANGE / Wallace for a rezoning of property from R-1, Suburban Residential
R-1 TO R-4 to R-4, Two Family Reisdential. The property is known as Lot 1,
Insteness Subdivision in the NE4 of Section 19, Township 28 North,
Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana. The property
is located on the south side of Sunnyside Drive where 6th Avenue
West ends.
8
Staff Report Parsons gave an overview of report #KZC-95-6. The subject
property is immediately north of the property that action was
taken on prior to this agenda item. The property is within the
city limits, and meets all the necessary criteria for a zone change.
It is recommended that the request from R-1 to R-4 be granted.
Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to proponents of the zone change.
In Favor Libby Wallace, asked for a favorable recommendation of their
request. She said they do not have the intention of leaving it
natural, like the previous applicant. Their intention is to finish
off making it look like the rest of the neighborhood. We would
like to build our home on the lot, and allow the other lot to be
sold.
No one else spoke either in favor or in opposition to the zone
change. The public hearing was closed and opened to Board
discussion.
Discussion An editorial change was made to the staff report, on page 1,
under Zoninz and Land Use, to clearly state that north of the
subject property, north of Sunnyside Drive, is zoned City R-4, to
show that the requested zone change is an extension of R-4 and
not a spot zone.
Kennedy clarified that the requested R-4 zone is a two-family,
duplex zone, and the two dwelling units would have to be
``- attached. She ascertained that a house already exists on the lot,
so a second dwelling would have to be attached to the existing
house, or it would have to be torn down in order to build a
duplex.
Staff replied that the applicant will probably subdivide the lot to
build another structure.
Hash considered a road a valid division of zoning classifications,
and expressed her opposition to the zone change. We just
approved an R-1 zone on land immediately adjacent to this
property. There are no roads or breaks between the Wallace
property and the Woods' property. We have one landowner who
recognizes there is floodplain and wishes to keep it as a wildlife
corridor. It seems the height of irony to applaud a retention of
an R-1 in this area, and then turn around and change an R-1 to
a much higher density of 8 units per acre. All the property
south of Sunnyside Drive is zoned R-1.
Bahr pointed out that adjacent to this lot there are three small
lots to the west that are less than one acre in size, and city
services are available.
9
Motion Fraser moved to adopt staff report #KZC-95-6 and the findings of
fact therein, and recommend the zone change from R-1 to R-4.
Bahr seconded. On a roll call vote Fraser, Carlson, Hodgeboom,
Sanders, and Bahr voted aye. Kennedy, Lapp and Hash voted no.
The motion carried on a 5-3 vote in favor of recommending the
requested zone change.
CESNICK Next, was a request by Robert Cesnick for a zone change from R-1
ZONE CHANGE f Suburban Residential to B-2 General Business on approximately 1.5
FROM R-1 acres. The property location is the northwest corner of US
TO B-2 Highway 2 and River Road, east of Kalispell. The property is
described as Certificate of Survey No. 3255 and Tract 2 of
Certificate of Survey No. 1944, located in the SW4 of Section 4,
Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County,
Montana.
Staff Report Parsons presented report #FZC-95-12. The requested zone change
was evaluated in accordance with the statutory criteria and it was
recommended that the request from R-1 to B-2 be granted.
Questions Staff was asked to clarify the property subject to the zone
change request. A triangular piece of land extends from the
shaded area on the map, adjacent to the highway, and the Board
asked if that was included in the zone change request? Fraser
asked if that piece could be included to avoid another zone
change request? Mr. Cesnick informed the Board that the
property in question belongs to western Neon. Staff recommended
that it not be done without notifying the property owner, or a
published legal notice.
Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to proponents of the requested
zone change.
In Favor Bob Cesnick, 14 River Road, the applicant, explained that the small
piece of property the Board discussed was a road abandonment
and it belongs to Gary Collier where signage is located. He asked
that the zone change be granted, as he is surrounded by
business zones.
No one else spoke either in favor or in opposition to the zone
change request. The public hearing was closed and opened to
Board discussion.
Discussion Concern was expressed regarding protection of the river from
erosion and run-off. Staff explained that the current regulations
would establish a 20 foot protection zone from the high water
mark, and any development would be subject to the floodplain
development regulations.
Carlson had a problem with a B-2 zone next to the floodplain.
10
Kennedy pointed out that there is no protection now. Mr. Cesnick
has been putting fill on that property for quite some time, and
there hasn't been any regulation on the current fill going on
there to raise the level of the high water mark.
Lopp asked why the B-2 zoning stopped at River Road and did
not continue until past the river? The history of the zoning
process for Evergreen was discussed.
Motion Hodgeboom moved to adopt report #FZC-95-12 as findings of fact
and forward a favorable recommendation to the County
Commissioners for the zone change. Bahr seconded. On a roll call
vote Sanders, Fraser, Bahr, Hodgeboom, Kennedy, and Hash voted
aye. Lopp and Carlson voted no. The motion carried on a 6-2
vote in favor of the zone change request from R-1 to B-2.
ABELL Hash introduced the next item which was a request by Annette
ZONE CHANGE / Abell for a zone change from SAG-10 Suburban Agricultur to R-1
FROM SAG-10 Suburban Residential on approximately 1.5 acres. The location of
TO R-1 the property is approximately 1,000 feet east of Helena Flats Road
at the end of Springwood Lane, east of Kalispell. The property
is described as Tract 2A of Certificate of Survey No. 8323, located
in the SE4 of Section 27, Township 29 North, Range 21 West,
P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana.
Staff Report Parsons presented report #FZC-95-11. The subject property is
split by two zoning districts, and the request is to rezone the
part which is zoned SAG-10 to be consistent with the R-1 zone of
the east portion. Staff evaluated the request in accordance with
the necessary criteria and recommended the zone change.
Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the zone
change request.
In Favor Annette Abell, the applicant, said she would like to have all of her
property zoned R-1, instead of being split down the middle with
two zones.
There being no other speakers either in favor or in opposition to
the zone change, the public hearing was closed and opened it to
Board discussion.
Motion Kennedy moved to adopt FRDO report #FZC-95-11 as findings of
fact and forward a favorable recommendation for the zone change
from SAG-10 to R-1, to the County Commissioners. Bahr seconded.
On a roll call vote Lapp, Kennedy, Carlson, Bahr, Fraser,
Hodgeboom, Sanders and Hash voted aye. The motion carried
unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS There was no old business.
11
NEW BUSINESS There will be one item on the next agenda.
Carlson distributed a booklet to Board members entitled, "The New
Home on the Range: Economic Realities in the Greater Columbia
River Basin".
Kennedy announced that "Which Way Kalispell?" is scheduled at
the Outlaw on Tuesday, November 21st from 3 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. put
on by the Kalispell Development Corporation and the City of
Kalispell.
The newly adopted Flathead County Subdivision Regulations were
distributed to Board members, to be put in the red books.
Wood announced that City Council adopted a new extension of
services plan and he will get copies for inclusion in the Board's
books.
ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at
8:50 p.m.
Therese Fox Hash, President Elizabeth Ontko, Recording Secretary
U
WORKSHOP: Immediately following adjournment, a workshop was held to review
revisions to the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations.
12