07. Resolution 4325 - Master Plan Amendment - Gardner AuctionAgenda -April 7, 1997
AGENDA ITEM 7 - MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE FOR GARDNER
AUCTION
BACKGROUND/CONSIDERATION: You may recall that we rejected a
previous request for a change in use of the Gardner Auction
facility. However, at that time, the Council also directed staff
to submit a request for a Master Plan Change and Zone Change on
behalf of Gardner Auction. This is the follow-up action that you
directed staff to complete.
RECOMMENDATION: Upon review of the Findings of Fact, the unanimous
vote to recommend by the Planning/Zoning Board, and the fact that
this is our request, I highly recommend that we approve the change.
ACTION REQUIRED: A RESOLUTION OF INTENT #4325 is needed to proceed
with a public hearing date of April 21 at 7:00 p.m. After the
hearing date, the zoning change will be on the May 5th Council
Meeting Agenda.
Flathead Regional Development Office
723 5th Avenue East - Room 414
Kalispell, Montana 59901
Phone: (406) 758-5980
Fax: (406) 758-5781
March 18, 1997
Clarence Krepps, City Manager
City of Kalispell
P.O. Drawer 1997
Kalispell, MT 59903
Re: City of Kalispell Master Plan Amendment and Zone Change
Dear Clarence:
At their regular meeting of March 11, 1997 the Kalispell City -County Planning Board
and Zoning Commission held a public hearing to consider a request by the City of
Kalispell on behalf of Gardner Auction Service for a master plan amendment and zone
change on their property located at 1894 Airport Road. The City Council directed the
staff to consider various options regarding the most appropriate zoning for this
property and make a recommendation.
At the meeting Narda Wilson presented staff report #KMPA97-2 to the planning board.
Based upon the staff evaluation, she recommended that the master plan designation be
} changed from High Density Residential to Light Industrial and the property be rezoned
from RA-1 to I-1.
During the public hearing, two people spoke. Todd Gardner spoke in favor of the staff
recommendation and Jerry Begg spoke in opposition. The Board briefly discussed the
history of the property under consideration and the reasons for the request. They then
adopted the staff report as findings of fact on a 9 to 0 vote.
Please schedule this matter for the March 24, 1997, City Council work session and
required subsequent meetings. The proposed master plan amendment is also being
forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for consideration and action. Please
contact this Commission or Narda Wilson at the Flathead Regional Development Office
if you have any questions regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING COMMISSION
ei_rtx.,� (f-- LL�
TheresFox Hash
President
i
TFH/NW/eo
Providing Community Planning Assistance To:
• Flathead County • City of Columbia Falls • City of Kalispell • City of Whitefish •
City of Kalispell Master Plan Amendment and Zone Change
March 18, 1997
Page 2 of 2
Attachments: FRDO Report #KMPA97-2 and back-up materials
Draft Minutes 3/ 11/97 Planning Board meeting (to follow)
c: w/Att: Debbie Gifford, City Clerk
c w/o Att: Flathead County Commissioners
Gardner Auction Svc, 1894 Airport Road, Kalispell, MT 59901
C. & S. Marvin, 1890 Airport Road, Kalispell, MT 59901
H: \... \KAL\ 1996 \KA97-2
KALISPELL CITY COUNTY MASTER PLAN MAP AMENDMENT
RESOLUTION KCCMPA-97-1
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY MASTER
PLAN MAP BY ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT FROM HIGH DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
WHEREAS, the Kalispell City -County Master Plan and master plan
map were adopted by the Kalispell City County on April 7, 1986 and by
the Flathead County Board of Commissioners on February 6, 1986, and
WHEREAS, on behalf of the City and the County and the residents
of the community, the Kalispell City Council initiated a master plan map
amendment from high density residential to light industrial on property
described as Lots 1 and 2, Guest Addition and Assessor's Tract 1AA
located in Section 19, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M.,
Flathead County, Montana
WHEREAS, in an effort to solicit public input, a public hearing
was held before the Kalispell City -County Planning Board on March 11,
1997, and public comment was received and duly noted as part of the
record.
NOW THEREFORE be it resolved that the Kalispell City -County
Planning Board hereby recommends to the Kalispell City Council and the
Flathead County Board of Commissioners amend the land use
designation for the above referenced parcels on the Kalispell City County
Master Plan Map from high density residential to light industrial.
Signed on this 2 1 day of March, 1997.
,,-- �� !�� &t,,-
Therese Fox Hash, President
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
M... 1K972RESO
RESOLUTION NO . _4.32_5_
A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO ADOPT, REVISE OR REJECT A RECOMMENDED
AMENDMENT TO THE KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY MASTER PLAN.
WHEREAS, on the 7t' day of April, 1986, the Kalispell City Council
adopted the Kalispell City -County Master Plan by
Resolution No. 3641, and
WHEREAS, the City of Kalispell submitted a request for a proposed
amendment for property owned by Gardner Auction Service
and Charles and Shirley Marvin, more particularly
described as Assessor's Tract 1AA and Lots 1 and 2 Guest
Addition located in Section 19, Township 28 North, Range
21 West, P.M.M., located within the Kalispell City -
County Master Plan area, and
WHEREAS, Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning
Commission, on the 11t' day of March, 1997, held a public
hearing, after due and proper notice, received comment
upon, and received and evaluated the proposed, plan
amendment in terms of environmental impact, site
potentiality and availability of services, and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of said public hearing and after
consideration of the proposed amendment, the Kalispell
City -County Planning Board, recommended to the City
Council of the City of Kalispell, Montana, and to the
Flathead Board of County Commissioners that the
Kalispell City -County Master Plan be amended by changing
the land use designation of the above described property
from, High Density Residential to Light Industrial, and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Kalispell considers it
advisable that they consider the recommendation of the
Kalispell City -County Planning Board and adopt a
Resolution of Intention to Adopt, Revise or Reject a
Recommended Amendment to the Kalispell City -County
Master Plan.
j:\wpWs\gardint 1
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
KALISPELL, AS FOLLOWS:
S.ECT1_0N—I. That pursuant to Section 76-1-604, MCA, the
City Council of the City of Kalispell intends
to consider the revisions of the Kalispell
City -County Master Plan, as recommended by the
Kalispell City -County Planning Board, to
change the plan for the area described above
from High Density Residential to Light
Industrial.
SE=O,N-= . That the City Council of the City of Kalispell
shall consider whether to pass a final
Resolution revising the Kalispell City -County
Master Plan as set forth herein at a meeting
to be held on the 21st day of April, 1997, at
7:00 P.M., at Council Chambers, City Hall,
Kalispell, Montana, and at the conclusion of
said meeting the City Council will consider a
Resolution to Revise, Reject or Adopt the
Proposed Amendment.
1
SECTION III. The City Clerk of Council is authorized and
directed to give notice of this meeting in
accordance with Section 7-1-4128, MCA.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY
OF KALISPELL THIS DAY OF , 1997.
Douglas D. Rauthe, Mayor
ATTEST:
Debbie Gifford, CMC
Clerk of Council
j:\wp\res\gardint 2
11Xb" c -t L,_ m. 'Lts:7 x; Xiv L ! V V.t.1.t it.. }':. :,1 1J1t;
e.
CITY OF KALISPELL
REQUEST WASTER PLAN AMENDMENT r ZONE CHANGE
FLATHEAD REGIONALDZIrELOPMENT OFFICE
STAFF • MARCH 5, 1997
A report to the Kalispell City -County Planning Board, the Kalispell City Council and
the Board of County Commissioners regarding a request by the City of Kalispell to
amend the Kalispell City -County Master Plan A public hearing has been scheduled
before the Kalispell City -County Planning Board for March 11, 1997 beginning at
7:00 PM in the Kalispell City Council Chambers. The Planning board will forward a
recornmenda.tiori to the Kalispell City Council and the County Commissioners for
final action.
City of Kalispell
P.O. Box 1997
Kalispell; MT 59901
(406) 758-7700
Gardner Auction Service
1894 Airport Road
Kalispell, MT 59901
(406) 752-7682
Charles and Shirley Marvin
1890 Airport Road
Kalispell, MT 59901
(406)755-1466
A. Nature of the Request:
The applicants have requested that the staff review a master plan
amendment and zone change on the subject properties from the current high
density residential and made an appropriate recommendation for change. It
appears that a light industrial designation is appropriate for this property
and the evaluation will be based on that proposal.
The property proposed for the master plan amendment is located on the west
side of Airport Read approximately 1,500 feet south of 18th Street in
Kalispell. The property can be described as Assessor's 'Tract 1AA and Lots 1
1
Yhi L'�'1H r. K�. L -v rF.�_F FA.. _.: »�^ ?'': J F . P, 3 and 2 of Guest Addition located in Section 19, Township 28 North, Range 21
West, P.M.M., Flathead County Montana.
The parcels on the southern portion of the property are used for an auction
house and mini storage while the property to the north is has a single family
dwelling. Currently the property is zoned RA-1, a Low Density Residential
Apartment District. The auction house and mini -storage exist on the site as
a non -conforming use.
1 » ♦ r » :.: : .I .
The area is characterized by a public park and single-family residential
development to the west and south, industrial uses to the east with the City
airport and related facilities, and residential development to the north.
North: Single family residential, zoned R-1
South: Begg Park, zoned P-1
Fast:: City Airport, zoned I-1
West: Begg Park, zoned P-1
The Montana Planning Statues provides the enabling legislation for local
governments to adopt and implement planning and zoning. Section 76-1-
102 defines the purpose of these provisions which states that it is to
encourage local government to improve the health, safety, convenience and
welfare of the citizens and to plan for the future development of their
communities. This includes the construction of highway systems; and new
community centers that grow only with adequate highway, utility, health,
educational and recreational facilities, and that the needs of agriculture,
industry and business be recognized in the future growth. That residential
areas provide healthy surroundings for family life, and that the growth of the
community promote the efficient and economical use of public funds.
The current Kalispell City -County Master Plan was adopted in 1986 and is
currently being updated. The plan is comprised of three major components
which include the master plan text, the master plan map and the goals and
objectives of the master plan. All three components are equally important
and must be equally weighed to adequately interpret and implement the
plan. This request is for an amendment to the map which must be evaluated
in the context of the goals and objectives of the overall plan whose primary
purpose is to guide the growth of the area.
2
PM yLAT:-EL-1 kL EV J�r..F F F::rL �_ F%�: P, 4
The proposed map amendment will be reviewed in accordance with the
following evaluation criteria;
a. Whether conditions or circumstances in the area have changed since
the adoption of the master plan which justify the map amendment.
b. Whether the map amendment furthers the goals and objectives of the
master plan as a whole.
C. Whether the proposed map amendment is consistent with the purpose
of the zoning regulations.
a) Whether conditions or circumstances in the area have changed since
adoption of the master plan which justify the map amendment.
Over the past several years the City of Kalispell has been working on the
adoption and implementation of the Airport Neighborhood Plan. Part of the
implementation process consisted of considerable rezoning of City property in
the area to light industrial and public, while designating general commercial
zoning along Highway 93. During this process, consideration was given to
the future development of the area for industrial use. Because of the existing
uses on these properties it appears that a light industrial zoning designation
would be consistent with other zoning which has taken place in the area..
masterb) Whether the map amendment furthers the gpals. and- objectives of the
4 as a whole.
The master plan policies for the light industrial districts are found on page
47 of the master plan and are described as being planned for the area
adjacent to the municipal airport. The area proposed for rezoning is
consistent with the master plan because this area is specifically identifSed in
the plan as an area for light industrial development.
regulations.c) Whether the amendment Is consistent with the purpose of the xoninj-4
1. Does the requested zone comply with the Master Plan?
The property proposed for industrial rezoning is consistent with the
goals and policies of the master plan as they relate to the location of
light industrial. .
3
EK-19EvJ
_..._ � J.�: ti
Rezoning the proposed property to a light industrial designation would
not alter the current traffic impact because the use in already in
existence.
3. W' 1 the re uested zone secure safe from fire anie and other
dangers?
The proposed amendment appears to be in an area that is easily
served by the police and fire protection agencies because of its good
access and close proximity to services.
AA WQid
�'
It appears that the light industrial designation would promote the
general health and welfare of the community by providing the
opportunity for industrial development in an area which has been
master planned for this use.
5. ' Will the requested zone provide for adequate light and air?
Setback, height, and coverage standards for development occurring on
this site are established in the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance to insure
adequate light and air is provided.
6. Will the requested zone 2revent the overcrowding of land?
The properties to the south are currently developed with regard to
buildings, parking and accessory structures. Adequate infrastructure
exists in the area to accommodate future development of the property
to the south.
?. Will the requested zone avoid undue concentration of ueoole?
The change in designation of this property from high density
residential to industrial may have the potential to decrease the
concentration of people because most industrial site are oriented
towards warehousing and light manufacturing which generally
generate less traffic than apartment buildings.
8. Will the requested zone facilitate the adequate provision of_.trans o�on•
water, sewerage, schools, parks. and other public requirements?
All public services and facilities are currently available to the: property
0
ire .�—'o—z! JUL. Lrk, PLrIIt: AU iff, Ltd
and this change should not have a significant impact on those
services.
9. Toes the requested zone Five consideration to then icular suitability
of the proorly for particular -use ?
This change gives reasonable consideration to the proposed uses
because most of this property has already been developed and it is
unlikely that an adaptive reuse of the existing buildings would be
anticipated.
10. Logs the reqUested zone 'vg� a reasonable consideration to the character
of the district?
The general character of the area is industrial to the east and public
and residential to the west. This change appears to give reasonable
consideration to the character of the area.
11. Will thg proposed zone conserve the value of buildings?
The value of the existing buildings on the southern portion f the
property will be conserved. A substantial investment has been made
in the existing buildings and the current master plan designation and
zoning makes is not conducive to the adaptive reuse or rehabilitation
of the structures,
12. Will the requested zone encoure the most appropriate use of the_land
throughout the j�uri§diction?
The master plan amendment and zone change encourages the most
appropriate use of land throughout the jurisdiction by providing
opportunities for industrial development near an area designated in
the master plan for this type of use.
0
Based upon the above evaluation, the staff would recommend that the Kalispell
City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt -Staff Report KMPA-97-
2 as findings of fact and forward a recommendation to the City Council and County
Commissioner to amend the master plan from high density residential to industrial
and rezone the property from RA-1 to I-1.
\... \KMPA97-2
4.0',=t--�I P, 11
Flathead ion
723 z AvenueRoom f r
Kalispell,k J M
Dwmbtt 2,19%
City of • pcH
P.O. Drawer 1.997
KaWpell, UT 59903
.. _ .:: #•+ Y� ': 1, i w > , Ji ..st , t 1 �:. ..1,. +l_k^ �, +2:. ,...
Osy
lhanel ( )'788-0980
Fox: ( 758 MI
r.x - ♦ • w!1 f ^ Y ,�. # 7'E, }, ,i._ 3 to 1' +f. t TT sY # fr .f + a'.;a :i k
_t�St' Y;1 ':Y •�- =?'t =f.? 3' f':" al H3a ft kt i1 -�i'�- x'a";' i3t 1.t�411a i11.4. .:1#ri .yam .:., •# si l:l
x f3r. • Yt ai .�`. . � i}_ ... a +f ^ #: �� r3 : iT � .... #'--.-.4 wi - i 3 tu.. , #., ., ,+. — ..
� i�,, , f.z ',-::.:1:aY +k=' x- t .,.: r ' + .i r ,+., ; #. sk ' s.Yi a # � '.a r' _ T3 +k • Ta k + ► f "T # , .. s.s.i,�# �+ 1 A. '
i>, #;a:� i,.# a# 1 ea= I# ' a".. f. r Y z . ^ a •. s . • .,. -;ear .ci .#r i : �-f ,..
la"It"Al. ff. .,.a .a #::f A
1. ' f-}:: 1f � #.:3 '3++wX #Y 7,Y' ' :f! J :.#., {>:' Tr'. - i�n;r ;Nf .■ 'ixi xr ' �i'i # i3rxy i' #i+ �. G #,x Y'..r .f f: t .f
`1i #e: - i� #- t- `:+TY r# 3 *}...•■ "1] i -
klrf ar.r'k. rr I "..'r.t .• 7;::: .. i ki � :. r t,J i '. of . ,i. 5" a� Y xx : i s'. T#= lYk iAx,. .� # # . Y Y. ♦ i ♦ !.'
' }iris if# ,. #:may_ '# .�}:,. Y. I •. Y : ::.% i + 'Ik 1:: ..Y i ki. '»Y
's'. fi.'. f' i.• 5a = f I.?:' i `�ivY r1'.,�, } f :."ii x+ , )k� 3 I ±A:" Y+� 3 3 � • s➢'.) 13 #�y ii 1' t w.; 'TT / sy si '}Y i_"i++S- + '
i _ +. ♦.- • T ' .w ►' +rl. )} :.t li + } '�: k# "`f ;..1 #Y ,r n - 4 i r': � # , a � �� T 3".f•cYlf ll #-zi :i �}4 - ,
f a"i M, .3 `: iY ai. ,)+; -:: 14i l.A•.+. k �rf 'Si3 -r3 l?Yi. :r.+x '.k:_i #r'} #} Si ` T.i' ii # # ! wJl. Y f':it 9>t• # �S�Y •
,3.w. :i:,yJ 1f s}• 3 k %+:t ta, Y).:..f tj+ 1xf #• 1_., . T.1, `
If you have say quatiow w4ndog U matter, plewe Q=w the pkm board of Narb Wbw at the
Ofte.
L L ffff�"rUN11#Y Kd! Pit VN!G BOARD AND ZON G CC* ION
Thme Fox ILub
Pident
TFH f NW/ea
A : Amuem Noremba 14,1"6 Plwanlq Boaxd meeting
V. City of i{al no
HA ... �KAAL SPEL\1"6\GAii13NELTIM
Providing Community Planning As co To:
• Flathead County •City of Columbia Falb 0 City of KARSpeii • City of WhitdUb •
2: C� P�` "L �'T � r'.�
E-7u LEV
r' "i
1 C,cS
t.El SU
�
14CA
00 �
1F
1—� 1CA 1 B
6
1H
t 1K
22
4 2 1
3 24 ZS �' 14
z 28
IF
P,
1A
NATIONAL :
GUARo
ARMORY
1D t8
i
INS- N+ O
lop
„�
� ♦�i ""d t L
Yi r
MOM
KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING
MARCH 11, 1997
CALL TO ORDER The regularly scheduled meeting of Kalispell City -County Planning
AND ROLL CALL Board and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by
President Hash. Board members present were Walter Bahr, Milt
Carlson, Pam Kennedy, Bob Sanders, Jean Johnson, Mike Conner,
Robert Lopp, Joe Brenneman, and Therese Hash. The Flathead Regional
Development Office was represented by Narda Wilson, Senior Planner.
There were approximately 20 people in the audience.
APPROVAL OF The minutes of the meeting of February 11, 1997 were approved as
MINUTES written on a motion by Conner, second by Brenneman. The motion
passed by acclamation vote.
OLD BUSINESS The agenda was changed to hear a presentation on housing
discrimination by Dennis Hester, Deputy County Attorney, on behalf of
the County, as part of a settlement agreement with the Human Rights
Commission. He handed out information on the State statutes pertaining
to discrimination in housing, and cited examples of discrimination based
on "familial status" in Flathead County. He answered Board questions,
and invited the Board members to call the County Attorneys' office, if
they have any further questions.
CITY OF President Hash returned to the published agenda and introduced a
KALISPELL request by the City of Kalispell on behalf of Gardner Auction Service for
MASTER PLAN a master plan amendment and appropriate zoning for property located on
AMENDMENT / the west side of Airport Road approximately 1,500 feet south of 18`h
GARDNER Street in Kalispell. The property under consideration is currently zoned
AUCTION SERVICE RA-1, Low Density Residential Apartment, and contains approximately
2.3 acres. The property can be described as Assessor's Tract IAA and
Lots 1 and 2 of Guest Addition, in Section 19, Township 28 North,
Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County.
Staff Report Wilson reviewed report #K IPA-97-2. The request for a master plan
amendment and zone change from RA-1 to I-1 was evaluated in
accordance with the statutory criteria and was found to meet all the
necessary requirements. Staff recommended approval.
Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the master plan
amendment and zone change.
1
In Favor Todd Gardner, stated that their testimony in November would be the
same for this. This is an attempt to reuse our building for another use
other than an auction, now that we have outgrown it, and are leasing
land from the City. There is a strip of land beside the auction building,
between us and the ball fields that we have been using. We are working
on a deal to develop it for them. There is a plan on file for sidewalks,
shrubs, sprinkler system and grass to develop that entrance. We are very
interested in doing that, even though we are moving to our new location
south of town. Your support is appreciated in helping us.
No one else spoke in favor. The public hearing was opened to those
opposed.
Opposition Jerry Begg, 220 Woodland Avenue, was opposed to being put in the
position of telling someone what to do with their property. The
Gardners have worked hard on that property and have done a good job.
I'm glad they were successful and were able to grow and move to a
bigger and better location. I think the mini -storage units have been good
for the area. I have no disagreement with that portion of their business.
I would like to give you a bit of history from my standpoint concerning
that area. My folks own property there. A number of years ago, when
the City was looking for an area to develop for the legion ballfields, my
folks donated about 17 acres to the City, along Ashley Creek. Begg
Park Drive divides the park. The south side was turned over to private
groups, and they did a terrific job with the legion ballfield. On the north
side, our agreement with the City was to develop a park similar to
Woodland Park. It would have facilities for families to use for picnics,
walkways along Ashley Creek, etc. Not a lot has been done on the north
half of the park for a number of reasons. In 1972, I met with Mike
Baker, the Park Director, Glen Neier, the City Attorney, and Bruce
Williams, the City Manager. For approximately 4'/z years, I was
stonewalled. Nothing was done. This last spring, I met with Mike Baker
and Councilman Dale Haarr, and discussed my concerns about what was
being done with the entrance to the property which the city owned. I
made an analogy that if I had a tractor or pickup that I wanted to sell and
parked beside the cannon in Woodland Park, how long do you think that
would be there? No one could come up with an answer. Mr. Gardner
and his family have used that area for a number of years. Finally, this
summer they were told that was city property and not to park their
vehicles on it. I went by this morning and this evening, and both times
there was a one ton pickup, there was dog kennel, with a dog, two half
ton pickups, a flat bed tandem axle trailer all parked on this property.
This has been going on for years, on city park property. Nothing has
ever been done about it. If you have ever walked out into what should
someday be a city park, from every area in that park, you can see the
2
Gardner's building, because it is on a hill. If that goes in to a light
- industrial use, you will have no control over any kind of mess that a
renter might leave. Obviously, if the city can't control their own park
property and make sure it is used for the purposes for which it was
donated to the city and given to the people of the City of Kalispell, how
would they control someone on their own property doing what they want
to do? I am opposed to this being used as an industrial site.
No one else spoke in opposition to the proposal. The hearing was
closed to public comment and opened to Board discussion.
Board Discussion Lopp asked what has changed since the previous hearing when staff
could not support a zone change?
Hash elaborated on the position of the Board's previous action, which
was dealing with a text amendment, which had a much more far reaching
effect. She noted at the time of the Airport Neighborhood Plan, the idea
was that there would be a variety of non residential uses in the vicinity.
Conner added when the Airport plan was done, the Gardners had
requested that their non -conforming use be addressed, but for some
reason it was excluded when the plan was completed. He was bothered
there was four years of no response to a concern dealing with the issue,
that was experienced by Mr`. Begg, although felt that it probably isn't an
isolated occurrence.
Varr Gardner agreed that they want to get this done. Right now, I do
not have any more room to put anything. This will help what Mr. Begg
would like to see. We have used that land for 18 years, and I want to
see it look nice. We are working out the legalities on it with Mike
Baker. There will be a survey done before we lease it to someone, to
determine where the boundary is. We aren't trying to take over the
property. We have mowed and maintained it all these years. We intend
to put the landscaping in.
The Board were in general agreement that this was an appropriate zone
change.
Motion Bahr moved that the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning
Commission adopt staff report #KMPA-97-2 as findings of fact and
forward a recommendation to City Council and County Commissioners
to amend the master plan from High Density Residential to Light
Industrial and rezone the property from RA-1 to I-1. Carlson seconded.
On roll call vote Sanders, Bahr, Conner, Carlson, Brenneman, Lopp,
Johnson, Kennedy, and Hash voted aye.
3 .
BIRCH PARK The next item on the agenda was introduced on a request by Carver
MOBILE HOME Engineering on behalf of Alberta Singer for preliminary plat approval to
' COURT allow the expansion of an existing manufactured home park known as
EXPANSION / Birch Park Mobile Home Court. The applicant is proposing to create 15
PRELEVU NARY additional spaces in an existing 25 space mobile home park for a total of
PLAT 40 spaces. The property is in the Evergreen and Vicinity Zoning District
and is zoned R-5, a Two Family Residential zoning district which lists
manufactured home parks as a conditionally permitted use. The
applicants have also requested a conditional sue permit from the Flathead
County Board of Adjustment. The property is located between LaSalle
Road (Highway 2 East) and West Cottonwood Drive approximately
1,000 feet north of the intersection of Highway 35 and Highway 2 East.
The property address is 58 West Cottonwood Drive, Kalispell, Montana.
Wilson gave a detailed overview of report #FPP-97-3. Based on review
of the necessary criteria, staff recommended 14 conditions of approval
for the expansion of the mobile home court.
The project also requires a conditional use permit from the Flathead
County Board of Adjustment, which went to a public hearing on March
46. After taking public testimony, where the neighbors voiced
considerable opposition to the expansion of the mobile home court based
on the existing violation of the community decay ordinance, the Board of
Adjustment continued the matter to May b, 1997, to allow the applicant
time to put together a management and implementation plan. Two
formal complaints were filed with our office following that public
hearing.
The Board of Adjustment is concerned with the neighborhood impact.
However, what is under consideration with the preliminary plat
application is the expansion of 15 spaces, and not the old mobile home
park. Since the applicant has paid the fees for the process to be set in
motion, the project is before this Board tonight, so as not to finiher delay
the permitting process prior to the construction season.
Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the proposal.
In Favor A letter from the applicant, Alberta Singer, was read into the record, as
she lives out of state and was unable to attend the meeting.
Andy Hyde, with Carver Engineering, representing the applicant, spoke
in favor of the project .,The condition of the existing park, there is no
dispute that it is not in good condition This proposal is a chance for the
' owner to both upgrade the existing park, and to create an additional 15
4
units that would be in much better shape than the existing 25. The
applicant needs the total of 40 to finance what she is proposing to do,
which includes paving the roads, putting in a landscape buffer, and a
playground. Of the 14 conditions, we have no dispute with any of them.
He reviewed the proposed design for the expansion and improvements to
the existing mobile home park. Condition # 13 is important, in that if this
preliminary plat is approved, the FRDO would be required to certify that
the violations of the community decay ordinance had been eliminated,
and that the mobile home park is in compliance before the final plat could
be filed. So, there is some teeth in the conditions to improve the park,
and have a positive impact on the neighborhood. There is a great need
for this type of development. It represents affordable housing which is in
great demand. I know these 15 spots would be rented very quickly and
would help generate revenue to pay off the financing of the investment.
This is an area where the character of the area is consistent with the
proposal. It is adjacent to existing courts to the north, south and west.
To the east is the commercial strip along LaSalle. This is not creating a
mobile home court out in the woodlands, or on agricultural land. This is
in the core area of Evergreen. The character of the neighborhood is not
unlike what this proposed expansion will be. In other areas where this is
proposed, almost without exception, new trailer courts have been denied.
It is has public water and sewer and the density is supported by the
availability of these public utilities. This will give the owner the
opportunity to get rid of some of the blight, junk and be able to create a
quality development that will attract a higher type of mobile homes. The
level of pride in their abode, right now, is not very high. I think if this is
allowed to be improved, you will see a general improvement of the
existing homes, as the decay is eliminated.
The owner lives in Texas. She mentioned that her two sons have
managed the court, and have not been very motivated to really work in
their mother's interest. She plans on living on site. She wants to deal
with her existing tenants, which is something she has not been able to do
living in Texas. She is looking at borrowing over a $1/2 million dollars to
improve the court and it is in her interests to create a good quality court.
As to the question about -why this application is before you tonight. The
conditional use permit public hearing was just a week prior. This hearing
was already scheduled. It is the expectation and hope that the Board of
Adjustment will grant the conditional use permit They had concerns
about the existing court, and wanted to be convinced that granting the
conditional use permit would have a net positive impact on the
neighborhood. I will work. with the owner to develop a plan that will
convince them this proposal y will have a positive impact on the
5
neighborhood. It is the plan to utilize the 1997 construction season to
implement these improvements. After the subdivision consideration by
the County Commissioners, there is a lengthy process to get health
' approval. We would rather have the permits in line early in the
construction season.
There were no other proponents of the project. The public hearing was
opened to opposition.
Opposition Two letters were received in opposition to the proposed expansion of
Birch Park Mobile Home Court, and are a part of the record.
Brenda Hall, 71 West Cottonwood, is opposed to the expansion of the
existing park. I work for the County Weed District, and two years ago,
on official business, I sent a letter to the absentee landowner, Alberta
Singer, regarding noxious weeds on the property. I received a response
a couple of months later, saying that she intended to expand the park and
this would be taken care of then. That was two years ago. Nothing has
been done. So, I am frustrated that she has owned this park for five
years, and still has not had the incentive to make the tenants clean up
their places. How can you force these people to clean it up? The corner
trailer lot, she has actually been trying to evict those people for four
months. Our worry is that if this expands, is that the kind of renters she
is going to get in there, again? That this is where the people who can't
afford a nice place will put their trailer? This is a concern for our
property value. I would hope that she actually made good on her
promise of improving the park. Right now, I have been frustrated, and
even with the issue of weeds, she could have acted on it and didn't.
Lynn Mergenthaler, 35 West Cottonwood, spoke in opposition. I keep
the roads plowed going in and out, because I don't like getting woke up
in the middle of the night because people are stuck. It is steep, and on a
blind comer. I was interested in purchasing the property adjacent to
mine, to put in some mobiles of my own. I was told they had to be
double wides on a permanent foundation. There was only room for two,
and I could not put on double wider to rent out and stay afloat. Yet,
they want to put 15 single wides across the street. That isn't right. I
wasn't able to do it across the street. -Mere are health problems. I have
seen raw sewage on the ground.- There is water leakage, year round. It
is in poor maintenance, which devalues my property.
Larry Hall, 71 West Cottonwood, said the roads are not maintained.
One is almost completely impassable, where people are stuck all the time.
Coming from the north, you can see the whole trailer park There is one
nice trader there that is about a $40,000 trailer, but what is going on
6
there is contagious, because he has tires, batteries, cars and junk in his
yard, too. If this lady can't even abide by County weed laws, she is not
going to be able to keep up with what she has planned here.
There were no other speakers in opposition. The public hearing was
closed and it was opened to Board discussion.
Board Discussion There was considerable discussion on enforcement of the community
decay ordinance, as well as the subdivision regulations for mobile home
parks in order to bring this mobile home court up to a standard that the
neighbors can feel comfortable with. The applicant would have to meet
the conditions of approval prior to final plat approval. Generally,
performance bonds are not accepted for mobile home parks. The
economic reality of the situation is that she needs the additional 15
spaces in order to get a bank loan to finance the improvements.
The Board wanted to know what kind of maintenance agreement,
covenants or park rules were in place?
Andy Hyde read through the rental agreement/park rules, which she
initiated last November, and entered into with the tenants.
Johnson felt there was a problem with possibly having two sets of rules —
one for the existing park, and another for the new expansion.
Conner suggested adding a condition incorporating the park rules as
further mitigation of the neighbor's concerns.
Wilson said there is a provision in the subdivision regulations for
management regulations and that would be appropriate to add as a
condition. If the park rules are not enforced then she is in violation of the
condition of plat approval.
Lopp agreed that adding the park rules as a condition was an excellent
idea. Upgrading the park, and raising the lot rent will help to clean it up.
Enforcement of the rules, however, is a concern.
The Board agreed by consensus to add a condition #15: "That park rules
be included with final flat and enforced by the prroverty owner."
There was discussion on the importance of the availability of Evergreen
Water and Sewer. Condition 96 was modified to add "Seek approval
from the Everg Water and Sewer District for service."
7
Condition #14 was amended to add "Thal the lreliminary plat shall bs
valid for three „yazs and that the conditional use permit ..."
Motion Kennedy moved that the Kalispell City -County Planning Board adopt
report #FPP-97-3 as findings of fact and recommend the County
Commissioners grant preliminary plat approval for the expansion of Birch
Park Mobile Home Court subject to the attached 15 conditions as
amended. Conditions #6, #14 and the new #15. Bahr seconded. On a
roll call vote the motion carried 9-0 in favor.
WILLOW BROOK. / The next item on the agenda was introduced on a request by Billmayer
PRELIMINARY Engineering on behalf of American Land and Development, Inc. for
PLAT preliminary plat approval of an 87 lot subdivision, called Willow Brook
Subdivision. The property is located in the Willow Glen Zoning District
and is zoned R-3, Single Family Residential. The property proposed for
subdivision contains approximately 28.86 acres and is located on the east
side of Willow Glen Drive directly across from Kelly Road and
approximately 1,100 feet south of Leisure Lane. The property can be
described as Assessor's Tracts 4C and 4AA in Section 21, Township 28
North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana.
Staff Report Wilson gave a detailed presentation of report #FPP-97-4. The application
was reviewed in accordance with the necessary criteria, and based on the
evaluation, 16 conditions of approval were recommended.
A change was made to condition #12 to add "That all water and sewer
plans and specifications shall be reviewed and approved by the DEQ, the
Kalispell Public Works Department, and Kalis ll City Council."
Questions Conner had concerns about possible hazardous waste on the site.
Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the proposal.
In Favor Jay Billmayer, Billmayer Engineering, spoke on behalf of the developer.
He addressed Mr. Conner's concern regarding the fact that this used to
be an equipment yard, and there has been oil on the ground surface. Oil
was not disposed of on this property. The shop facility is not a part of
this subdivision, but we have looked into that to assure that there is not
an overall problem. We are caught between the city and county
differences of philosophy in zoning. They are both R-3, but we made the
lots at 10,000 square feet for county R 3, rather than 7,000 square feet
for city R 3. We lost some units, but the "overall economics will be about
the same. We -have established harmony between the staffs goals and
the developer's goals.
0
ti
He elaborated on the stormwater treatment facility. We have been
working on wetlands for treatment of both sewage and stormwater.
There was a real need there for the entire neighborhood, because it has
never been adequately addressed. We have had discussions with the
County Commissioners and hopefully will be able to fill in the gap to this
comprehensive solution. If we do not come to a final decision, we will
be redesigning. A redesign will be significant if we are forced to come
up with a different stormwater system. We expect this to be fenced, so
that there will not be access for children. We have had meetings with the
Christian school about improving their playground equipment, and in
addition to cash -in -lieu of parklands, that utilizes the amenities in the
neighborhood.
No one else spoke either in favor or in opposition to the project. The
public hearing was closed and opened to Board discussion.
Board Discussion Conner commented that he thought Willow Glen is scheduled to be
reconstructed.
Wilson clarified that it is on the priority list, but there are no design and
construction plans at this time. It is number three on the list.
Kennedy reviewed the project as it was discussed at the council work
session the previous evening. The parklands issue was important to the
Greenacres neighborhood, to preserve some green space, and to have a
place for neighborhood children, however, the Commissioners had a
different view.
Brenneman also had a concern about the cash in lieu of parkland. His
preference would be to have a park within the subdivision. As a parent, I
would be uncomfortable with my kids crossing a construction zone to get
to the playground, and those living in the north lots would be about V2
mile from the Christian school. He also had concern about the transitory
nature of a Christian school.
There was considerable discussion on the parkland arrangement
however, it was agreed that the condition #9 addressed it.
Dennis Dortch, President of the Greenacres Homeowner's Association,
was asked to comment on the homeowner's feelings on this subdivision.
He stated that their preference was to have parkland for the
neighborhoods. In general, they are satisfied with the project. If the lots
had been at 7,000 square feet, it would have been a different story. They
are happy to see the wetlands extended to make up for those that have
been filled in. It will be a great improvement over the yellow graveyard.
9=
Based on Mr. Billmayer's testimony, condition #9 was modified to strike
the last part of sentence 2 to: "Access from the subdivision to the school
shall be provided.
ti-eatment s; A pedestrian access easement shall be located ..."
Motion Carlson moved that the Kalispell City County Planning Board adopt the
findings of fact in report #PPP-97-4, and recommend that the County
Commissioners grant preliminary plat approval for the subdivision
subject to the 16 conditions as amended by discussion. Kennedy
seconded. On a roll call vote the motion carried unanimously in favor.
OLD BUSINESS Other old business was update on the Kalispell City -County Master Plan.
Chapters 1 and 3 were submitted to the Board for their review. Any
comments or changes were solicited from Board members on this
information.
By consensus, the Board agreed to meet at 6:00 p.m. for a one hour
work session before the regular meeting on April 8 h.
NEW BUSINESS Conner wanted to discuss under new business the provision for a green
belt buffer, which came up tonight with the Begg Park. Another issue
which was brought up was some sort of leverage to enforce the decay
ordinance.
There was discussion on the decay ordinance.
ADJOURNMENT There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
Therese Fox Hash, President
Elizabeth Ontko, Recording Secretary
)fd_