07. Public Hearing - Subdivision Regulationsci�
�
Incorporated 1892
Telephone (406) 758-7700
Douglas RmAhe
g
FAX (406) 758-775$
Mayor
Post Office Box 1997
Kalispell, Montana
Al Thelen
Zip 59903-1997
Interim City Manag4
City Council
Members:
Gary W. Nystul
MEMO
Ward i
Cliff Collins
Ward I
To: Mayor and City Council
Norbert F. Donahue
Ward II
From: Al Thelen
Dale Haan
Ward 11
Date: March 22, 1996
Jim Atkinson
Ward III
Re.: summary of Subdivision Regulations
Lauren Granmo
Ward III
Attached is a memo from Tom Jentz, Director of the Flathead Pamela B. Kenned
Regional Development Office, relating to subdivision regulations Ward IV
which have been revised and will be reviewed at the April 8 work M. Duane Larson
session. They are provided at this time so that you will have Ward IV
a chance to review them and the other construction standards
will be available next week.
Flathead Regional Development Office
Room 414
Montana 59901
Phone: (406) 7WS980
Fax: (406) 758-5781
TO: AL THELEN, INTERIM CITY MANAGER
FROM: TOM JENTZ, DIRECI`O L
RE: AMENDMENTS TO SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
DATE: MARCH 14, 1996
The draft update of the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations as reviewed by City Staff and the
Kalispell City -County Planning Board has been forwarded to the City Council for final review,
hearing and action.
There are several reasons prompting preparation of the updated document. The 1995 State
Legislature passed House Bill f#473 as well as several other minor pieces of legislation which
included substantial amendments to the State Subdivision and Platting Act. The majority of
changes involved review procedures and directly affect the actions of both the Planning Board
and City Council.
In addition to the necessary legislative changes, the Planning Board and staff also undertook a
substantial review of the existing subdivision regulations. These regulations were adopted in
1981 and have become dated. They do not fully reflect the way either the City or FRDO staff
are currently functioning. Finally, design standards have changed and the Council is in the
process of adopting Design and Construction Standards for the City.
When reviewing the draft, staff has highlighted with color marker the major changes
incorporated into the rewrite. Considerable editing has also occurred for the purpose of
organization and to make the document read better. These changes have not been noted as they
have no substantive effect on the document.
A summary of the major proposed changes are discussed in greater detail in attachment A.
Section 76-3-305, MCA, does require the City Council to hold a public hearing with a minimum
15 day notice prior to action on any amendments to the regulations. I would suggest distributing
the draft regulations to the Council during the March 25, 1996 Council study session. At that
time it would be appropriate to set a public hearing date for the April 15, 1996 Council meeting.
This would allow the Council an opportunity to hold a study session on this document at the
April 8 Council Study Session. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact this office.
TW/dh
Attachment: Draft Kalispell Subdivision Regulations
SUBRFcs\xnuJPEL\DRAn-%_MEM
Providing Community Planning Assistance To:
• Flathead County • City of Columbia Falls 9 City of Kalispell • City of !Whitefish •
ATTACHMENT A
SUMMARY OF MAJOR CHANGES Tb
KALSIPELL SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
All page numbers referenced below relate to Draft #3 of the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations
dated February 5, 1996 (orange cover).
Page 2, Purpose - M. The Protection of the rights of pro &M owners (An additional
purpose statement required by the 95 Legislature)
Page 4, Preliminary Plat, A. Major Subdivision and B. Minor Subdivision:
... is proposed form the original tract of Record in existence on October 1 199
(allows definition of when a series of minor subdivisions ultimately become a
major subdivision based on 1993 legislatures use of the term °tract of record".
Page 6, B(3), Action by the Planning Board:
Section 2 would require that the public hearing be held at the Planning Board
level. Currently it is required to be held at the Council level. In practice the
planning board now holds the hearing as well.
Page 7, C. Planning Board Action:
Subsection 4 adds language specifically from 1995 legislature tempering approvals
or denials by the planning board.
Page 7, C. Planning Board Action:
Subsections 6(a,b,& c,) add a process to address changes made by an applicant
to a preliminary plat after it leaves the planning Board public hearing but before
it is acted upon by the City Council.
Page 9, D(2) Action by the city Council:
A subdivision shall not be denied based solely on its impacts on educational
services. (1995 legislative amend.)
Page 9, E(3-6) CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL:
Added to comply with 1995 legislature amendments.
Extends City Council approval of a preliminary plat from 1 year to 3 years as
provided for in the state enabling law. One year has not proven adequate to
accomplish preliminary plat conditions. allows developer additional time to plan
and finance improvements.
Page 10, F(1) CITY COUNCIL DENIAL:
...and information regarding the appeal process provided or in Section 7.06 of
these regulations. A subdivision shall not be denied solely based on its impart
on educational services. (1995 legislature requires applicants to be informed of
appeal process if their subdivision is denied and prohibits school impacts as the
primary reason for denial.)
Page 14, PRELIMINARY PLAT PROCESS - MINOR SUBDIVISION PREL MNARY
PLAT WAIVER:
A new section to streamline the approval of minor subdivisions which have
adequate services, conform to existing regulations and pose insignificant impacts.
Page 25, Section 3.06, LOTS (E,F):
New sections added to allow greater flexibility for defining a buildable lot in
areas of steep slope. Typically those areas occur along benches or ridges in
Kalispell and are now being looked at for development with greater frequency)
Page 27, Section 3.08, ACCESS (D,E):
New sections to set threshold for when a second access into a development is
needed.
Page 29, Table 1, Maximum Grade
The existing standards were 7 % Arterial, 8 % Collector and 9 % for local streets.
It is proposed to set a uniform standard of 6 % for all new streets.
Page 35, Section 3.19, Parkland:
Substantially revised to reflect 1995 Legislative session. The previous 119 rule
for parkland has been replaced by a sliding scale based on lot size. Minor
subdivisions (5 lots or less) are now exempt from any parkland dedication.
Greater latitude is allowed for determining what parkland dedications can consist
of, for example, critical wildlife areas, areas of aesthetic value, agricultural areas,
etc.
0�
A new section borrowed from the county subdivision regulations to address future
development occurring in timbered areas.
Page 52, Section 7.06, APPEALS
A new section required by the 1995 legislature which gives any "affected" person
standing to litigate a preliminary plat approval or denial. Prior to this time, the
preliminary plat process was exempt from litigation.
3