I3. Lofts at Ashley (Reso 5792, Ord 1782)Planning Department
201 1" Avenue East
Kalispell, MT 59901
Phone: (406) 758-7940
Fax: (406) 758-7739
www.kalispell.com/planning
REPORT TO: Doug Russell, City Manager iZ
FROM: Jarod Nygren, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: KA-16-03 — Annexation and Initial Zoning of RA-1 (Residential Apartment) for Lofts
at Ashley, LLC
MEETING DATE: December 5, 2016
BACKGROUND: A request from Lofts at Ashley, LLC, to annex a 3.79 acre parcel into the city and zone the
land RA-2 (Residential Apartment/Office) upon annexation. The property is currently zoned county R-4 and
undeveloped, however, upon annexation the applicant is requesting to construct multi -family residential
apartments. Water and sanitary sewer service are in the vicinity of the property and upon annexation
extensions will be constructed to serve the property. The property is located at 2050 Airport Road in south
Kalispell. The property to be annexed can be legally described as Tract 1 of Certificate of Survey #20138, in
Section 19, Township 28N, Range 21 W, P.M.,M., Flathead County, Montana.
The Kalispell Planning Board held a duly noticed public hearing November 9, 2016, to consider the
application request. Staff presented staff report KA-16-03 providing details of the proposal and evaluation.
Staff recommended that the Planning Board adopt the staff report as findings of fact, and recommend to the
City Council that the annexation and initial zoning request be granted.
During the public comment portion of the hearing, a representative of the applicant spoke in favor of the
request. Ten (10) members of the public spoke in opposition to the request, at which time one of the members
presented 133 signatures of residents that were also in opposition to the proposed RA-2 Zone. Additionally,
approximately 40 members within the audience stood up in opposition to the requested RA-2 Zone. The
members of the public, including the signatures gathered, requested that the initial zoning of the property be
RA-1 Zone, rather than the requested RA-2 Zone. The members of the public were concerned that the density
allowed by the RA-2 Zone and the potential office use allowable by the RA-2 Zone were not appropriate for
the subject property and would have detrimental effects on their quality of life and property values.
There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed and a motion was presented to adopt staff
report KA-16-03 as findings of fact, and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the property be annexed
and the initial zoning of the property upon annexation be RA-2. The Board discussed the requested RA-2 Zone
noting that it did allow twice the density on an RA-1 Zone and that the RA-1 Zone was more compatible with
the surrounding city R-4 Zone and county R-4 Zone. They also concluded that the RA-2 Zone would allow
offices which would be out of character with the neighborhood.
Accordingly, a motion was presented to amend the requested zoning from RA-2 to RA-1. Board discussion
concluded that the amendment was appropriate, as there was overwhelming public support voiced for the RA-
1 Zone during the public hearing. The Board concluded the RA-2 Zone would unduly impact the character of
the adjacent single-family neighborhood due to the allowable density and potential commercial use within the
zone. The Board also felt the RA-1 Zone was more comparable to the adjacent city R-4 Zoning and County R-
4 Zoning. The motion passed unanimously upon roll call vote. There being no further discussion, the original
motion, as amended, passed unanimously upon roll call vote.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Council approve the annexation and first reading of the
ordinance for initial zoning of RA-1 (Residential Apartment).
FISCAL EFFECTS: Approval of the request would have positive fiscal impact to the City.
ALTERNATIVES: Deny the request.
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution 5792
Ordinance 1782
Annexation and initial zoning Staff Report KA-16-03
Minutes of the November 9 2016, Kalispell Planning Board
Application Materials
Public Comment
c: Aimee Brunckhorst, Kalispell City Clerk
Return to:
Kalispell City Clerk
PO Box 1997
Kalispell, MT 59903
RESOLUTION NO. 5792
A RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE FOR THE ALTERATION OF THE BOUNDARIES OF
THE CITY OF KALISPELL BY INCLUDING THEREIN AS AN ANNEXATION CERTAIN
REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS TRACT 1 OF CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY 20138 OF
SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 28 NORTH, RANGE 21 WEST, P.M.M., FLATHEAD COUNTY,
MONTANA, TO BE KNOWN AS LOFTS AT ASHLEY ADDITION NO. 426; TO ZONE
SAID PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE KALISPELL ZONING ORDINANCE,
AND TO DECLARE AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Kalispell has received a petition from Lofts at Ashley, LLC, the owners of
the above -referenced property, requesting the City of Kalispell annex the territory
into the City; and
WHEREAS, the Kalispell Planning Department has made a report on the petitioner's Annexation
Request, #KA-16-03, dated November 9, 2016; and
WHEREAS, the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission recommended the
territory be zoned City RA-1, Residential Apartment, on approximately 3.79 acres of
land upon annexation into the City of Kalispell; 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 1. That all the real property described as Tract 1 of Certificate of Survey 20138
of Section 19, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead
County, Montana, be annexed to the City of Kalispell and the boundary of the
City is altered to so provide, and shall be known as Lofts at Ashley Addition
No. 426.
SECTION 2. Upon the effective date of this Resolution, the City Clerk 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, 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 3. The territory annexed by this Resolution shall be zoned in accordance with
the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance.
SECTION 4. This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon passage by the City
Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND SIGNED BY THE MAYOR OF THE
CITY OF KALISPELL, THIS 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2016.
Mark Johnson
Mayor
ATTEST:
Aimee Brunckhorst, CMC
City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO. 1782
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 27.02.010, OFFICIAL ZONING MAP, CITY OF
KALISPELL ZONING ORDINANCE, (ORDINANCE NO. 1677), BY ZONING CERTAIN
REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS TRACT 1 OF CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY 20138 OF
SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 28 NORTH, RANGE 21 WEST, FLATHEAD COUNTY,
MONTANA, (CURRENTLY ZONED COUNTY R-4 (TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO
CITY RA-1 (RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT)) IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE KALISPELL
GROWTH POLICY 2020, AND TO PROVIDE AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Lofts at Ashley, LLC, the owner of the property described above, petitioned the City
of Kalispell that the zoning classification attached to the above described tract of
land, currently zoned County R-4, Two Family Residential, be zoned RA-2,
Residential Apartment/Office, on approximately 3.79 acres of land; and
WHEREAS, the property is located at 2050 Airport Road; and
WHEREAS, Lofts at Ashley, LLC's petition was the subject of a report compiled by the Kalispell
Planning Department, Staff Report #KA-16-03, in which the Kalispell Planning
Department evaluated the petition and recommended that the property as described
above be zoned RA-2, Residential Apartment/Office, pursuant to Kalispell City Code
27.29.020; and
WHEREAS, the Kalispell City Planning Board held a Public Hearing on the matter on November
9, 2016, and after considering the Staff Report #KA-16-03 as well as public comment
and discussion, recommended that the zoning be City RA-1, Residential Apartment,
pursuant to Kalispell City Code 27.29.030 for the reason that the reduced density of
City RA-1, Residential Apartment is more consistent and compatible with the
existing surrounding neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, after considering all the evidence submitted on the proposal to zone the property as
described RA-2, Residential Apartment, the City Council finds the recommendation
of the Kalispell City Planning Board to zone the property as RA-1, Residential
Apartment to be more compatible to the existing neighborhood and to be also
consistent with the Kalispell Growth Policy 2020 and adopts, based upon the
criterion set forth in Section 76-3-608, M.C.A., and State, Etc. v. Board of County
Commissioners, Etc. 590 P2d 602, the essential findings of fact of KPD as set forth
in Staff Report No. KA-16-03 with the exception of the consideration of density.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
KALISPELL, AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 27.02.010, of the Official Zoning Map of the Kalispell Zoning
Ordinance, (Ordinance No. 1677) is hereby amended by designating the
property described above as RA-1, Residential Apartment, on
approximately 3.79 acres of land.
SECTION 2. The balance of Section 27.02.010, Official Zoning Map, City of Kalispell
Zoning Ordinance not amended hereby shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall take effect from and after 30 days of its passage by the
City Council.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND SIGNED BY THE MAYOR OF THE
CITY OF KALISPELL, MONTANA, THIS DAY OF DECEMBER, 2016.
Mark Johnson
Mayor
ATTEST:
Aimee Brunckhorst, CMC
City Clerk
LOFTS AT ASHLEY
REQUEST FOR INITIAL ZONING OF RA-2, UPON ANNEXATION
STAFF REPORT #KA-16-03
REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
STAFF REPORT #KCU-16-05
KALISPELL PLANNING DEPARTMENT
NOVEMBER 9, 2016
A report to the Kalispell City Planning Board and the Kalispell City Council regarding a
request from Lofts at Ashley, LLC to annex into the city limits with an initial zoning
designation of RA-2 upon annexation and a conditional use permit (CUP) for multi-
family residential apartments. The property is located at 2050 Airport Road in south
Kalispell. A public hearing has been scheduled before the planning board for
November 9, 2016, beginning at 6:00 PM in the Kalispell City Council Chambers. The
planning board will forward a recommendation to the Kalispell City Council for final
action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The Planning Department has received the following applications from Lofts at Ashley,
LLC for review:
• File # KA-16-03 - A request to annex a 3.8 acre parcel into the city and zone
the land RA-2 (Residential Apartment/Office) upon annexation. The subject
property is located at 2050 Airport Road in south Kalispell. The property is
currently undeveloped, however, upon annexation the applicant is
requesting to construct multi -family residential apartments (see below).
Water and sanitary sewer service are in the vicinity of the property and upon
annexation extensions will be constructed to serve the property.
• File # KCU-16-05 - A request for a conditional use permit for an 82 unit
multi -family apartment complex within the RA-2 (Residential
Apartment/Office) Zoning District. The apartment project would be
comprised of 62 two -bedroom units and 20 three -bedroom units arranged in
three buildings that vary between two and three stories in design. The
conditional use permit application would be subject to approval of
application KA-16-03, mentioned above. Multi -family apartment complexes
are permitted within the RA-2 Zone provided a conditional use permit is
obtained per 27.10.030 of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance.
This report evaluates the two applications in accordance with state and local
regulations. The annexation request and initial city zoning classification will be
reviewed in accordance with Section 27.03.010(4) of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance.
This property will be annexed under the provisions of Sections 7-2-4601 through 7-2-
4610, M.C.A., Annexation by Petition. The CUP will be reviewed in accordance with
Section 27.33.080 of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance.
1
A. Petitioner / Owner: Lofts at Ashley, LLC
P.O. Box 534
Bigfork, MT 59911
B. Location and Legal Description of Properties:
The property under consideration is located at 2050 Airport Road, at the
southwest intersection of Airport Road and Teal Drive. The 3.8-acre parcel can be
described as Tract 1 of Certificate of Survey # 19815, in the Southwest Quarter of
Section 30, Township 29 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County,
Montana.
C. Existing Land Use and Zoning:
The property is currently within the county zoning jurisdiction and is zoned R-4
(Two -Family Residential). The county R-4 Zoning District is intended to provide
for urban residential development. Development within the district will require all
public utilities and all community facilities. A duplex is allowed in the district,
which equate to 1 unit per 3,750 square feet. Accordingly, the density permitted
with the county zoning would be approximately 45 units.
The 3.8 acre site is currently undeveloped grasslands with some landscaping
topography, mature trees, irrigation and "Ashley Park" entry sign. The property
was originally owned by the developer of the Ashley Park Subdivision to the west.
The landscaping was put in place as an entry into the subdivision. This coincides
with the .21 acre "Entry Landscaped Area A" parcel to the north. It can be
assumed that this was done in order to create an aesthetically pleasing entrance
into the subdivision. Although the small .21 acre parcel to the north is limited to
landscaping only, the subject property is not. Subdivision records indicate that
the subject property was never required to be parkland, even though it was
developed that way. The developer paid a park -in -lieu fee as each phase of the
Ashely Park Subdivision was developed, meeting the parkland requirement.
Another indicator that the property was never designated parkland for the
subdivision is that it is still located within county jurisdiction.
D. Proposed Zoning:
The applicant is requesting an RA-2 (Residential Apartment/Office) Zone. The
Kalispell Zoning Regulations state that the RA-2 Zone is intended to "provide
areas for residential development including multi -family housing and compatible
non-residential uses of high land use intensity. This district would typically serve
as a buffer zone between other commercial districts and adjacent residential
areas. The location of this district depends on proximity to major streets,
arterials, and business districts. This district shall be located within or adjacent
to business corridors, shopping islands or the Central Business District. This
zoning district would typically be found in areas designated as urban mixed use,
high density residential and commercial on the Kalispell Growth Policy Future
Land Use Map".
E. Size: The subject property is 3.8 acres.
F. Adjacent Land Uses:
North: Single-family residence, Ashley Creek and Begg Field
East: Single-family residence, vacant land, Ashley Creek and city wastewater
treatment plant,
West: Single-family residential,
South: Single-family residential.
G. Adjacent Zoning:
North: City R-4 and county SAG-10
East: County I-2
West: City R-4
South: City R-4 and county R-4
H. General Land Use Character:
The general land use category of the area can be described as a mix of uses in
transition. The primary use within the area is single-family, with the Ashley Park
Subdivision to the west and a few adjacent residences constructed in the county
on large lots. Additional uses within the vicinity include a meat processing plant,
baseball fields, mobile home park, city wastewater treatment plant, city airport and
salvage yard. Much of the area directly to the east of the subject property is located
within FEMA Flood Zone adjacent to Ashley Creek. This area will likely not be
developed. Looking into the future, School District 5 owns an approximately 25
acre parcel about .10 miles to the south where a new elementary school will be
located. It can be suspected that the new elementary school, along with the
completion of the bypass, will drive new residential development on the south end
town.
I. Utilities and Public Services:
City water and sewer mains are both within the vicinity of the property to the
south and north. Both utilities will need to be extended to the property. When
annexed, the developer will be required to pay the cost for the utility extension.
The design and sizing of these utilities will be reviewed and approved by the
Kalispell Public Works Department.
Sewer: City of Kalispell if annexed
Water: City of Kalispell if annexed
Refuse: City of Kalispell if annexed
Electricity: Flathead Electric Cooperative
Telephone: CenturyLink
Schools: School District No. 5 and Elrod Elementary
Fire: South Kalispell Fire District (currently), City of Kalispell
Fire Department if annexed
Police: Flathead County Sheriff Department (currently), City of
Kalispell Police Department if annexed
3
I. ANNEXATION EVALUATION
1. Compliance with the growth policy:
Two primary mechanisms for managing growth in the City of Kalispell exist
which are to rely on redevelopment and infill within the current city limits or
annexation of outlying areas. A goal of the growth policy is to provide a
comprehensive, effective growth management plan that provides for all the
needs of the community, is adaptable to changing trends and is attuned to the
overall public welfare. Chapter 2, Growth Management, contains the following
goals that are relevant to this particular annexation request:
2. Implement a comprehensive, effective growth management program that
recognizes and upholds the general welfare of the community as well as
individual rights.
3. Encourage housing types that provide housing for all sectors and income
levels within the community.
5. New urban and suburban development occurs in areas where public
water and sewer are available.
In addition, to the three cited goals, the city council adopted an annexation
policy in 2011, with a corresponding map as an addendum to the city's growth
policy document. The purpose of the annexation policy is to give the planning
board, the council, and the development community direction when property
owners outside of the city limits are requesting municipal services and
annexation. The property proposed for annexation falls inside the city's direct
annexation boundary.
2. Municipal Services:
Municipal sewer and water mains, are located within the vicinity of the property
to the south and west and can be readily extended by the applicant to serve the
site when the property undergoes development. The Kalispell Sewer treatment
plant lies within 'A mile of the site. Storm water services in Teal Drive abut the
property and have capacity to serve the site.
The site is currently protected by the South Kalispell Fire District and the
Flathead County Sheriff's office. The applicant has submitted a Notice of
Withdrawal from Rural Fire District. At the time of annexation, the property
will be served by the Kalispell Fire Department. The site lies within 1 1/2 miles of
fire station 61 and is readily serviceable by the city fire, police and ambulance
services all of which now respond to the immediately adjacent neighborhood.
Given the level of existing services available to and in place, annexation of the
property will not overburden the municipal services in place.
E
3. Distance from current city limits:
The project site is bordering city limits on its west property boundary (Ashley
Park Subdivision) thus annexation will serve to be a logical expansion of the
existing city limits.
4. Cost of services:
Once annexed to the city, full city services will be made available to the property
owner. Any necessary infrastructure associated with this development will be
required to be constructed in accordance with the City of Kalispell's Design and
Construction standards and any other development policies, regulations or
ordinances that may apply. If annexed, the property owner will be extending
and connecting to city sewer and water at the time of development.
The attached cost of services analysis prepared for this property is for
commercial annexations. The analysis is only an estimate based on a variety of
assumptions. The analysis does not take into consideration changes in
methods of assessment and estimated costs associated with services. The
information can only be used as a general estimate of the anticipated cost of
services and revenue.
The cost to serve the land proposed for annexation is shown in the attached
cost of service analysis - Initial Annexation. The total cost of services is
estimated to be $30,233. Almost all of the cost is related to sewer and
wastewater treatment. Based on the city's taxation and assessment policies, the
property will generate approximately $32,915 in total annual revenue to the city
($28,784 in taxes and $4,131 in assessments). Based on this analysis, the
annexation will be net gain to the city of approximately $2,681. However, as
part of the development the city will collect approximately $566,494 in one-time
impact fees. The bulk of the impact fees are generated from sewer and water
services.
II. INITIAL ZONING EVALUATION BASED ON STATUTORY CRITERIA
The statutory basis for reviewing a change in zoning is set forth by 76-2-303;
M.C.A. Findings of fact for the zone change request are discussed relative to the
itemized criteria described by 76-2-304, M.C.A. and Section 27.29.020, Kalispell
Zoning Ordinance. The site is currently zoned county R-4. The applicants are
requesting city RA-2 (Residential Apartment/Office) to accommodate the
proposed multi -family apartment for the entire 3.8 acres.
The Kalispell Zoning Regulations state that the RA-2 Zone is intended to
"provide areas for residential development including multi -family housing and
compatible non-residential uses of high land use intensity. This district would
typically serve as a buffer zone between other commercial districts and adjacent
residential areas. The location of this district depends on proximity to major
streets, arterials, and business districts. This district shall be located within or
adjacent to business corridors, shopping islands or the Central Business
District. This zoning district would typically be found in areas designated as
5
urban mixed use, high density residential and commercial on the Kalispell
Growth Policy Future Land Use Map".
1. Does the requested zone comply with the growth policy?
The land use designation of the property in the City Growth Policy 2020 is
"Urban Residential".
The proposed RA-2 Zone is consistent with the City of Kalispell Growth
Policy 2020 in the following ways:
Chapter 3, Housing:
GOAL:
"Provide an adequate supply and mix of housing that meets the needs of present
and future residents in terms of cost, type design and location".
The RA-2 Zone provides for multi -family residential, which would provide an
additional supply of housing in an area that is suspected to grow with
anticipated construction of a new elementary school. Currently, the south end
of town is lacking multi -family residential units which are a critical component
to both housing supply and affordability.
POLICY (Urban Residential):
a. "Urban residential areas shown on the plan map should be encouraged to be
developed when adequate services and facilities are available".
The subject property is adjacent to Airport Road, which is an arterial roadway,
and the Kalispell Bypass. Both of these transportation modes provide adequate
access into the development and city as a whole. Municipal services, such as
sewer mains and water mains are located within the vicinity of the property to
the south and north. These utilities will need to be extended to the property at
the time it undergoes development. The site is currently protected by the South
Kalispell Fire District and the Flathead County Sheriff's office. The applicant
has submitted a Notice of Withdrawal from Rural Fire District. At the time of
annexation, the property will be served by the Kalispell Fire Department.
Similarly, the property will be served by the Kalispell Police Department upon
annexation.
c. 'Single-family houses are the primary housing type, but duplexes, guest
houses, accessory apartments, and small dispersed areas of multi family housing
are also anticipated." The proposed RA-2 zone would provide for a dispersed
area of multi -family housing. It also provides a housing need in an area that
lacks alternative housing options other than single-family residential.
Alternative housing options will be important as the area grows with the
anticipated construction of a new elementary school directly south of the
subject property.
d. "Urban and high density residential areas should be fully served by urban
infrastructure and municipal services, including paved streets, curbs, sidewalks,
landscaped boulevards and public sewer and water."
Con
Municipal services, such as sewer mains and water mains, are located within
the vicinity of the property to the south and north. These utilities will need to
be extended to the property at the time it undergoes development. Any new
infrastructure will be installed by the applicant to the City of Kalispell
Construction and Design Guidelines.
e. "These areas should have convenient access to neighborhood business
districts, parks and elementary schools." Airport Road and the bypass provide
for convenient access into both the downtown and north end of the city. There
is a proposed elementary school approximately .10 miles to the south and Begg
Park is located approximately .2 miles to the north. Additionally, the
development provides approximately 45,566 square feet of land that could be
used for recreating and a communal gazebo/plaza area for the residents.
Recommendations:
5. "Inclusion of multi family dwellings in some areas designated as urban
residential may be appropriate depending on the character of the surrounding
neighborhoods and anticipated trends". It is anticipated the south end of
Kalispell will grow rapidly with the construction of a new elementary school,
necessitating diverse housing options, such as multi -family housing.
Additionally, multi -family residential located within the RA-2 Zone requires a
conditional use permit. Appropriate conditions may be placed on the project to
insure adequate mitigation is implemented to preserve the character of
neighboring properties.
The proposed amendment is NOT consistent with the City of Kalispell
Growth Policy 2020 in the following ways:
POLICY (Urban Residential)
b. "Typical densities are four to twelve dwelling units per gross acre."
The proposed RA-2 residential/apartment /office zone classification is the city's
most dense residential zone and provides for densities of up to 29 units/acre by
conditional use and office uses as a permitted use. These residential densities
are twice as dense as the growth policy designation of Urban Residential
anticipates. Thus on its face, the RA-2 could be found to be out of character
with the area. The RA-2 zone does require the conditional use permit process
to allow mitigation measures and design enhancements to ensure neighborhood
compatibility. In this setting, the RA-1 Residential Apartment zone would be
the multi -family zone classification expected within the Urban Residential land
use category, as it has a maximum density of approximately 15 units per acre.
This much more closely resembles 4-12 dwelling units per acre called out for in
the plan.
Allowing up to 21.5 units per acre (requested density) within the Urban
Residential land use category is not prohibited; however, the densities provided
in the Urban Residential land use category should serve as a guide for future
development. As mentioned above, there are numerous goals, policies and
recommendations within the Growth Policy that support the proposed RA-2
Zone. Ultimately, strict adherence to density projections may lead to inadequate
use of land. The project's density should be evaluated on its ability to provide
7
city services and mitigate any impacts associated with the development of the
property. As stated previously, the RA-2 zone does require the conditional use
permit process to allow mitigation measures and design enhancements to
ensure neighborhood compatibility.
2. Will the requested zone have an effect on motorized and non -motorized
transportation systems?
The property is located on and has immediate access to Airport Road, an arterial
road that is part of the Kalispell Urban Aid System. This roadway has significant
capacity and provides immediate access both to the Kalispell downtown urban
area and to the Kalispell Bypass. A traffic impact study for a proposed 96 unit
apartment complex was submitted to this office as part of the original application
materials in September of this year. While this project was not approved or
constructed, it did analyze a significantly dense project (96 residential units
which is very close to the maximum of 110 units allowed by the zoning on this
site). The study evaluated all of the intersections between 18th Street and the
Kalispell Bypass, which included the intersections of 19th Street, Teal Drive,
Merganser Drive, Cemetery Road and the Kalispell Bypass. The study projected
that the 96-unit apartment project would generate 638 daily trips in the area and
that this volume of traffic would not create any additional roadway capacity
problems within the area studied. All of the intersections within the area will
continue to operate at a level of services (LOS) C or better with the additional
traffic being counted. No roadway improvements or intersection modifications
would have been necessary. Therefore, although there will be a change in the
amount of traffic in the area, the traffic study has concluded that there are no
significant traffic impacts and that the transportation system will continue to
operate at a satisfactory level.
3. Will the requested zone secure safety from fire, panic, and other dangers?
Adequate access and public facilities are available to the site in the case of an
emergency. There are no features related to the property which would
compromise the safety of the public. All municipal services including police and
fire protection, water, and sewer service will be made available to the area. The
site is 1.5 miles from fire station 61 with good response time.
4. Will the requested zone promote the public health, safety and general welfare?
The zoning classification of RA-2 will allow a significantly higher density of
housing than is now developed in the immediate neighborhood. It also would
allow the potential intrusion of office uses into a primarily single family developed
neighborhood. The conditional use permit process is available to ensure
neighborhood compatibly in the case of multi -family housing, however; office
uses are permitted outright and there are no specific opportunities to encourage
a reasonable transition between low density residential uses and more intense
office uses in the RA-2 zone.
5. Will the requested zone provide for adequate light and air?
Setback, height, and lot coverage standards for development occurring on this
site are established in the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance to insure adequate light
and air is provided. The setbacks for the proposed RA-2 Zone are the same as
those as the neighboring R-4 Zone properties (Front=15, Rear=10, Side=S). The
RA-2 Zone does provide for slightly more height (40' vs. 35) and slightly more lot
coverage (50% vs. 45%) than the neighboring R-4 Zone properties. Ultimately,
intensive uses within the RA-2 Zone such as multi -family housing requires a
conditional use permit, at which time the impacts on light and air can be
analyzed and mitigated through conditions of approval. Other more intensive
uses such as professional offices would not necessarily have those additional
safeguards.
6. Will the requested zone promote compatible urban growth?
The RA-2 Zone (Residential Apartment/Office) allows for densities that are not
compatible with the surrounding developments when designed at the maximum
allowable densities. The RA-2 Zone allows for densities of one unit per 1,500
square feet, or approximately 110 units maximum. However, intensive uses
(such as multi -family) within the RA-2 Zone requires a conditional use permit,
at which time the impacts of the development can be analyzed and mitigated
through conditions of approval. Ultimately, strict adherence to density
projections may lead to inadequate use of land. The project's density should be
evaluated on its ability to provide city services and mitigate any impacts
associated with the development of the property.
The RA-2 Zone also provides for office - professional/governmental as a
permitted use. These uses would not require a conditional use permit, thus no
ability for there to be additional development conditions added. The applicant is
not requesting office space, however, once annexed the ability for this property
to develop as office is plausible if the multi -family project is not developed.
Although there are no additional conditions that can be implemented for office
space, there are commercial development standards for parking, screening,
landscaping, setbacks and height that would mitigate some potential impacts of
office development of the property. There would not be a public hearing process
to identify specific mitigation measures to lessen the impact to neighboring
properties other than the general standards provided for within the zoning
ordinance. The standards provided have been adequate in most cases, as there
are many instances within the city where office space abuts residential
developments.
Section 76-2-303(3)(a)(i) M.C.A., provides direction for how municipalities
should address annexations and initial zoning. It specifically states that the
proposed zoning should be comparable to the existing county zoning. The
subject property is currently county R-4 Zoning, which is a single-family duplex
zone that would accommodate up to 45 units on the property. County R-4 also
does not provide for commercial office space. A more comparable zone would be
the city R-4 Zone, or the city RA-1 Zone both of which allow a density of 55
units. In addition, neither of these zones provide for commercial office space. In
this case, an RA-1 Zone (Residential Apartment) designation possibly could be
considered as more appropriate. It still allows multi -family housing at a density
of one unit/3,000 square feet (half the maximum allowable density of the RA-2
I
Zone with a density of one unit / 1,500 square feet of lot area) but it does not
allow office uses. The RA-1 Zone is also more comparable in overall density to
the existing single family neighborhoods bordering the site. The adjacent
neighborhoods within city limits to the west are zoned R-4 Zone which allows a
similar density of one-unit/3,000 square feet, however it limits structure sizes
to single family and duplex development.
7. Will the requested zone facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water,
sewerage, schools, parks, and other public requirements?
All public services are currently available or can be provided to the property.
Development should be encouraged in areas where these services are available.
8. Does the requested zone give consideration to the particular suitability of the
property for particular uses?
The requested RA-2 Zoning District does give consideration to the particular
suitability of the property for multi -family. The subject property being developed
as multi -family residential is located on the corner of Teal Drive and Airport
Road, an improved arterial. Airport Road will continue to carry increased traffic.
An RA-2 Zone can and does serve as a buffer between the more intense traffic
flows of an arterial road and the single-family neighborhoods to the west. In
addition, the site also serves as a buffer to the City municipal sewer plant to the
north east. Finally, with the advent of the new elementary school, multi -family
housing in this location will serve to be an asset to families with young children.
9. Does the requested zone give reasonable consideration to the character of the
district?
As mentioned previously, the general character of the area is mixed and in
transition. The primary character of the area would be single-family residential
with the Ashley Park Subdivision to the west. The area is also in transition as the
bypass has been completed allowing for unobstructed north/south access along
Airport Road. A new elementary school is proposed just south of the subject
property which will spur increased development activity in the neighborhood.
Additionally, multi -family residential located within the RA-2 Zone requires a
conditional use permit. Appropriate conditions may be placed on the project to
insure adequate mitigation is implemented to preserve the character of
neighboring properties.
10. Will the requested zone avoid undue concentration of people?
The RA-2 Zone allows for densities that are not compatible with the
surrounding developments when designed at the maximum allowable densities.
The RA-2 Zone allows for densities of one unit per 1,500 square feet, or
approximately 110 units maximum. However, intensive uses (such as multi-
family) within the RA-2 Zone requires a conditional use permit, at which time
the impacts of the development can be analyzed and mitigated through
conditions of approval. Additionally, the intensity of the uses of the property
would be in direct relationship to the availability of public services, utilities and
10
facilities as well as compliance with established design standards. The design
standards and availability of utilities would provide the infrastructure needed to
insure that there will not be an overcrowding of the land or undue concentration
of people.
11. Will the proposed zone conserve the value of buildings?
Value of the buildings in the area will be conserved because the annexation will
allow the current owner access to municipal services and fully develop this lot to
an urban standard. The RA-2 Zone also gives due consideration of the suitability
of this property for the uses in the zoning district, protecting the value of
buildings on and adjacent the property.
12. Will the requested zone encourage the most appropriate use of the land
throughout the municipality?
The RA-2 Zone provides for multi -family development. Multi -family development
should be encouraged in areas where services and facilities are available. In this
case water and sewer lines are located within a short distance of the property and
the proposal meets a present and future need for additional housing options. The
RA-2 zone also gives due consideration of the suitability of this property for the
uses in the zoning district.
III. EVALUATION OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
This application has been reviewed in accordance with the conditional use permit
review criteria in the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance (KMC 27.33.080). A conditional
use permit may be granted only if the proposal, as submitted, conforms to all of
the following general conditional use permit criteria, as well as to all other
applicable criteria that may be requested:
1. Site Suitability:
a. Adequate Useable Space: The subject property is 3.8 acres in size and
relatively flat with some undulating topography. Although there is some
undulating landscaping topography, the entire property is developable.
b. Height, bulk and location of the building: There are three buildings
ranging from 2-3 stories tall. The southwestern building is limited to 2
stories in height. The northern most building is comprised of 2-story and
3-story construction. The 2-story units are located along the west side
with the 3-story portions being located on Teal Drive and Airport Road.
There is one small portion of this building located along the west side (as it
turn south) that is 3-story in height. It is recommended that this portion
of the building be limited to 2-story, as it is in close proximity to the
residences to the west and faces them. This recommendation would
minimize the perceived bulk of the structure and also address privacy
concerns of the neighboring residences to the west. The neighboring
residences have expressed concerns that the 10' minimum setback
coupled with 2 and 3-story multi -family structures of significant mass and
scale with second and third floor decks will significantly degrade
11
neighborhood peace and privacy. The southeastern building is 3-story and
located entirely along Airport Road. At its closest point, the buildings are
89' away from the rear property line of the residence to the west. This
setback increases to 98' at the northwest corner of the site. The space
located along the westerly property line (within the 89' setback) is reserved
for landscaping and parking. The maximum height of the proposed 3-story
apartment buildings is 38' tall, 2' shorter than the maximum height
permitted by the RA-2 Zone. The 2-story buildings are approximately 30'
tall. All of the buildings meet the required setback and lot coverage
requirements of the RA-2 Zone, as the development provides
approximately 50,000 square feet of open area on the subject property.
Staff presented the existing site plan and elevation drawings to the
Architectural Review Committee at their September 26, 2016, meeting.
The committee was generally favorable of the development and was
appreciative of the architecture, i.e. - design, colors, materials, etc.
Originally, they had mentioned that the geometry of the site seemed off
with a proposed 12-plex at the northwest end of the subject property, and
9 units at the center of the development seeming forced. However, since
their last review the site has been redesigned, the project was reduced
from 96 units to 82 units with the 12-plex being removed and the 9 units
at the center of the development being resituated.
C. Adequate Access: The subject property is adjacent to Airport Road,
which is an improved arterial roadway, and Teal Drive an improved city
street. Additionally, the intersection to the bypass is to the south
providing efficient access to the entire city. The project has two access
points, one off of Teal Drive and another off of Airport Road.
d. Environmental Constraints: There are no known environmental
constraints, such as steep slopes, streams, floodplains, or wetlands, on
the property which could affect the proposed use.
2. Appropriate Design:
a. Parking Scheme/Loading Areas: The development shall comply with the
Off -Street Parking and Design Standards as set forth in Chapter 27.24 of
the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. For 82 units the zoning code requires 123
spaces and the applicant has provided 159, exceeding the minimum
parking requirement by 36 parking spaces.
b. Lighting: Chapter 27.26 of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance sets standards
for all outdoor lighting on commercial or residential structures. Exterior
lighting installed in conjunction with the development will be reviewed for
compliance with the zoning ordinance during site development review.
C. Traffic Circulation: A 24' wide two-way drive isle will provide access
through the development and onto both Teal Drive and Airport Road
providing adequate access and circulation.
d. Open Space: The proposed development has approximately 50,000 square
feet of area that will remain undeveloped.
12
e. Fencing/Screening/Landscaping: The site plan has provided adequate
landscaping area in regards to parking, buffering, etc. Additionally, to
ensure the property is fully landscaped and is compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood, a landscape plan shall be submitted along with
the building permit. The landscape plan shall be approved by the Parks
Department prior to issuance of the building permit.
Currently, the subject property does have an undulating landscaped berm
approximately 9' tall that functions as a buffer between the residences to
the west and Airport Road. The applicant has proposed a 6' tall landscaped
berm along the westerly property line in order to replicate this feature
(albeit closer to the residences). The landscaped berm is intended to buffer
the development from the adjacent single-family residences where there is
a proposed parking lot. As a practical matter the intent of the berm is to
limit the noise, lights, smell, etc. associated with the vehicles parked (47
parking spaces) in such close proximity to the residences. As proposed, the
landscaped berm is approximately 6' tall and 15' wide with an approximate
1:1 slope. This slope is not easily maintainable. Staff feels that a more
adequate berm would be 6' tall and at a 3:1 slope. A 6' tall berm at a 3:1
slope would adequately obscure the development from the residences and
maintain its ability to be maintained. If the berm were not properly
maintained it would become an eyesore to the residences west of the
development. A 6' berm at a 3:1 slope would significantly alter the site plan
as it would require approximately 38' of landscaped area along the west
boundary. As already mentioned, the proposed berm is only about 15' wide
with the parking immediately adjacent. A 38' berm would encroach into the
area where parking is currently proposed. The berm should also be
landscaped with bushes, shrubs, trees, and grass to further obscure the
proposed development.
f. Signage: The development shall comply with all of the sign standards as
set forth in Chapter 27.22 of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. At this point
no signs are being proposed.
3. Availability of Public Services/Facilities:
a. Sewer: Sewer service will be provided by the city. The developer will be
required to pay the cost for the utility extension.
b. Water: Water service will be provided by the city. The developer will be
required to pay the cost for the utility extension.
C. Storm Water Drainage: Storm water runoff from the site shall be managed
and constructed per the City of Kalispell Construction and Design
Guidelines. Final design will be approved by Kalispell Public Works
Department prior to building permit issuance. Prior to receiving a building
permit the developer will need to submit a construction storm water
management plan to the Public Works Department. This plan will need to
show how storm water will be treated and where it will be directed during
construction activities.
13
Additionally, there is an existing storm water line locate along the westerly
boundary of the subject property. The storm water line is currently located
where the landscaped berm would be constructed. A berm cannot be
located on top of the storm water due to maintenance reasons. Accordingly,
staff has conditioned the project to require the applicant to provide for a 15'
easement for the storm water line. The landscaped buffer would not start
until the edge of the 15' easement, which allows for the city to maintain the
existing line. If providing the easement is not an option, the storm water
line could be relocated into another location. If the storm water line is
relocated so as to not require the 15' easement, a minimum setback should
be required between the neighboring properties to the west and the toe of
the proposed slope. The setback should be of size to accommodate all the
drainage coming off of the berm so the neighboring properties to the west
are not flooded.
d. Solid Waste: Solid waste pick-up will be provided by the city.
e. Fire Protection: Fire protection will be provided by the Kalispell Fire
Department. There is adequate access to the property from the public road
system and the buildings will be constructed to meet current building and
fire code standards. Station 61 is 1.5 miles from the site and response time
will be good.
f. Police: Police protection will be provided by the Kalispell Police Department.
No unusual impacts or needs are anticipated from the proposed use.
g. Streets: The primary street frontages are Teal Drive and Airport Road, both
improved city streets capable of handling the traffic anticipated from the
proposed development.
h. Sidewalks: There are existing sidewalks along the entire property frontage
of Teal Drive. The developer will need to install sidewalks along the entire
property frontage of Airport Road in accordance with the City of Kalispell
Construction and Design Guidelines.
i. Schools: This site is within the boundaries of School District #5. An impact
to the district may be anticipated from the proposed development
depending on the demographics of the residents. On average forty one
(41) students K-12 would be anticipated from 82 dwelling units.
j. Parks and Recreation: Section 27.34.060 of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance
requires approximately 41,000 square feet of recreational amenities for the
development based on 500 square feet of land, or equivalent value in
recreational amenity based on 82 units. There is approximately 50,335
square feet of undeveloped area, of which staff believes approximately
45,566 square feet can be considered a recreational amenity. In addition to
the 45,556 square feet of recreational amenity area, the developer is
proposing a communal gazebo area within the plaza with an approximate
value of $20,000 (500 square feet gazebo at $40 square foot). The
recreational area provided, in conjunction with a communal gazebo area
valued at approximately $20,000 dollars, the recreational amenity
requirement has been met.
14
4. Neighborhood impacts:
a. Traffic: A traffic impact study for the development was completed by Abelin
Traffic Services. The document studied the possible effects on the
surrounding road system from the multi -family project. The study
evaluated all of the intersections between 18th Street and the Kalispell
Bypass, which included the intersections of 19th Street, Teal Drive,
Merganser Drive, Cemetery Road and the Kalispell Bypass. The study
projected that the apartments would generate 638 (based off of 96 units)
daily trips in the area. Accordingly, the project will not create any
additional roadway capacity problems within the area studied. All of the
intersections within the area will continue to operate at a level of services
(LOS) C or better with the additional traffic being counted. No roadway
improvements or intersection modifications are necessary. Therefore,
although there will be a change in the amount of traffic in the area, the
traffic study has concluded that there are no significant traffic impacts
and that the transportation system will continue to operate at a
satisfactory level.
b. Noise and Vibration: The development of the property as multi -family
residential will create additional noise and vibration. Primarily the
aforementioned will be generated from automobiles. The residents most
impacted by the noise and vibration from the automobiles would be the
residences immediately adjacent the development. The site plan shows 159
parking spaces of which approximately 47 are immediately adjacent to
single-family residences to the west. The noise and vibration can be
mitigated through the construction of a 6' tall landscaped berm built at 3:1
slope. This would provide adequate height to buffer the noise and provide a
38' buffer from the neighboring properties.
C. Dust, Glare, and Heat: The use of the property as a multi -family
residential would not generate any unreasonable dust, glare, and heat
other than during construction.
d. Smoke, Fumes, Gas, or Odors: The development of the property as multi-
family residential will create additional smoke, fumes, gas and odors.
Primarily the aforementioned will be generated from automobiles. The
residents most impacted by the smoke, fumes, gas and odors from the
automobiles would be the residences immediately adjacent the
development. This issue can be mitigated through the development of the
6' tall landscaped buffer as mentioned previously.
e. Hours of Operation: As the development if for residential there will be no
hours of operation.
5. Consideration of historical use patterns and recent changes:
The property was originally owned by the developer of the Ashley Park
Subdivision to the west. The landscaping was put in place as an entry into the
subdivision. The residents of the Ashley Park Subdivision have perceived the
property was parkland, as it had been developed that way. Subdivision records
15
indicate that the subject property was never required to be parkland, even
though it was developed that way. The developer paid a park -in -lieu fee as each
phase of the Ashely Park Subdivision was developed; meeting the parkland
requirement and leaving the property open for future development.
The general character of the area is mixed and in transition. Although the land
uses in the area is mixed, the primary character of the area would be single-
family residential with the Ashley Park Subdivision to the west. The area is also
in transition as the bypass has been completed allowing for unobstructed
north/south access and a new elementary school is proposed just south of the
subject property which will spur new development.
6. Effects on property values:
The requested development could have negative impact on the immediately
adjacent single-family residences to the west of the project site. However, those
potential impacts can be mitigated through conditions of approval. The
development itself will bring considerable value to the neighborhood and
surrounding community that is in need of new development and additional
housing options.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt
Staff Report #KA-16-03 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council
that the property be annexed and the initial zoning for this property upon annexation be
RA-2 (Residential Apartment/Office).
Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission
adopt Staff Report KCU-16-05 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City
Council that the conditional use permit, be approved subject to the conditions listed
below:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
General Conditions
1. That commencement of the approved activity must begin within 18 months from
the date of authorization or that a continuous good faith effort is made to bring
the project to completion.
2. That the development of the site shall be in substantial conformance with the
submitted architectural and site plan drawings in regards to setbacks,
landscaping, parking, recreational amenity and height. In particular, the
building plans shall incorporate decks, roof pitch, colors and materials as
shown on the architectural renderings submitted.
3. Architectural renderings are required to be submitted to the Kalispell
Architectural Review Committee for review and approval prior to issuance of a
16
building permit.
4. All buildings facing or abutting the western property line shall be a maximum of
2-story construction.
5. Future sanitary sewer connections east of the subject property are unlikely due
to low-lying floodplains between Ashley Creek and Airport Road. Rather than
extending the sanitary sewer main in Teal Drive to the far east property line as
required in the City of Kalispell Design and Construction Standards, the
development may opt to extend the sewer main west in Teal Drive far enough to
provide future sewer service to lot 4C to the north of the subject property. If the
development chooses this option to meet the intent of the City of Kalispell
Design and Construction Standards, an appropriate easement for future sewer
service shall also be provided through Entryway Landscape Area "A".
6. The existing water main south of the subject property shall be extended to
connect with the existing water main in Teal Drive to form a looped connection.
7. The developer shall submit to the Kalispell Public Works Department for review
and approval a storm water report and an engineered drainage plan that meets
the requirements of the City of Kalispell Construction and Design Standards.
8. A letter from the Kalispell Public Works Department shall be submitted stating
that all new infrastructure has been accepted by the City of Kalispell or a
proper bond has been accepted for unfinished work.
9. Sidewalks curb and gutter shall be constructed per the City of Kalispell
Construction and Design Standards within the right-of-way of Airport Road the
length of the property.
10.A minimum 15' wide unobstructed utility easement shall be provided for the
existing storm main and appurtenances running adjacent to the westerly
property line. Vehicle access shall be provided to maintenance points on the
existing storm system. The 15' easement shall be outside of the landscaped
berm as provided for in condition number 14.
11.If the storm main along the westerly property boundary is relocated, it shall be
constructed per the City of Kalispell Construction and Design Standards.
12. To ensure the traffic flow and access comply with Kalispell Design and
Construction Standards, the development shall receive Site Review Committee
approval prior to issuance of the building permit.
13. To ensure the property is fully landscaped and is compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood, a landscape plan shall be submitted along with the building
permit. The landscape plan shall be approved by the Parks Department prior to
issuance of the building permit.
14. A 6' tall landscaped berm with a 3:1 slope shall be constructed along the entire
westerly property boundary. The berm shall be landscaped with grass, trees
bushes and shrubs to form a pleasing sight obscuring visual barrier. The plan
shall be approved by the Parks Department. The toe of the berm shall be setback
17
a minimum distance from the westerly property line in order to provide for
drainage swell/feature to address storm water runoff.
15.The applicant shall provide a minimum 4' tall fence along the westerly property
line.
16. Prior to any work within the public right-of-way along Teal Drive, the
property/owner will work with the Parks Superintendent to establish tree
protection zones and file a permit for any tree removals with the Parks
Department.
17. A minimum of 500 square feet of land per unit which has recreational value, or
recreational amenities equivalent to the fair market value of 500 square feet of
land shall be provided. The landscaped berm and gazebo meet this requirement.
IN
KALISPELL CITY PLANNING BOARD & ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
November 9, 2016
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL
The regular meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and
CALL
Zoning Commission was called to order at 6:00 p.m. Board
members present were: Chad Graham, Steve Lorch, Doug
Kauffinan, Christopher Yerkes, Rory Young & Ronalee Skees.
Charles Pesola was absent. Tom Jentz, Jarod Nygren and PJ
Sorensen represented the Kalispell Planning Department.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Yerkes moved and Skees seconded a motion to approve the
minutes of the October 11, 2016, meeting of the Kalispell City
Planning Board and Zoning Commission.
VOTE BY ACCLAMATION
The motion passed unanimously on a vote of acclamation.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
KALISPELL CITY PLANNING
A request from the Kalispell City Planning Department to rezone
DEPARTMENT B-3 CORE
72 lots from B-2 (General Business) to B-3 (Core Area Business)
AREA BUSINESS ZONING
and 10 lots from B-4 (Central Business) to B-3 (Core Area
Business).
STAFF REPORT
Jarod Nygren, representing the Kalispell Planning Department
reviewed Staff report KZC-16-03 for the board.
Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and
Zoning Commission adopt Staff Report #KZC 16-03 as findings of
fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the areas
zoned B-2 (General Business) and B-4 (Central Business) be
rezoned to B-3 (Core Area Business).
BOARD DISCUSSION
Young asked if there have been any objections, stating he assumes
there has been positive feedback. Nygren said there have been no
objections at this point, at least from the property owners that have
been notified to date.
PUBLIC HEARING
None.
MOTION
Kauffinan moved and Lorch seconded a motion that the Kalispell
City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt Staff Report
#KZC 16-03 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City
Council that the areas zoned B-2 (General Business) and B-4
(Central Business) be rezoned to B-3 (Core Area Business).
BOARD DISCUSSION
Graham mentioned it is really good to see this core area idea
continue to move in this direction.
ROLL CALL
The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote.
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of November 9, 2016
Page I 1
THE LOFTS @ ASHLEY
A request to annex a 3.79 acre parcel into the city and zone the
ANNEXATION, INITIAL
land RA-2 (Residential Apartment/Office) upon annexation. The
ZONING AND CONDITIONAL
property is located at 2050 Airport Road in south Kalispell.
USE PERMIT
A request for a conditional use permit for an 82 unit multi -family
apartment complex within the RA-2 (Residential
Apartment/Office) Zoning District.
BOARD MEMBER STEPPED
Board member Lorch stepped down from the discussion and vote
DOWN
on the Lofts @ Ashley due to a conflict of interest.
STAFF REPORT
Jarod Nygren, representing the Kalispell Planning Department
reviewed Staff report KA-16-03 and KCU-16-05 for the board.
Nygren noted there is some hesitation with the proposed zoning
because it would allow approx. 29 units per acre and the growth
policy land use designation is urban residential which is approx. 4-
12 dwelling units per acre. Nygren compared the density allowed
in RA-1 zoning that was considered for this property, to the RA-2
zoning. Staff does support the RA-2 zoning based on the fact that
multi -family can be conditioned. Nygren reviewed the changes to
the site plan that reduced the units proposed from 96 to 82 units.
Staff met with the neighborhood again regarding redesign and they
still had concerns with the density. Based on those concerns some
additional changes were recommended and have been incorporated
into the conditions of approval.
Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and
Zoning Commission adopt Staff Report #KA-16-03 as findings of
fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the property
be annexed and the initial zoning for this property upon annexation
be RA-2 (Residential Apartment/Office).
Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and
Zoning Commission adopt Staff Report KCU-16-05 as findings of
fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the
conditional use permit, be approved subject to the conditions listed
in the Staff Report.
BOARD DISCUSSION
Yerkes asked Nygren to briefly go over the difference in density
between the RA-1 and RA-2. Nygren explained RA-1 is one
dwelling unit per 3,000 sq ft, which would be approx. 55 units
whereas RA-2 is one dwelling unit per 1,500 sq ft which would be
approx. 110 units on this property, both are zoned multi -family,
however the RA-2 includes an office component.
Graham asked if RA-1 is more compatible with the surrounding
area, then why is that not the recommendation. Jentz said when we
started with the project the applicant asked if multi -family would
work there and we indicated that it is a place we could see multi -
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of November 9, 2016
Page 12
family coming in with a design that works with the neighborhood.
We didn't specifically talk about zoning designations but the
density they were looking at was going to drive an RA-2
recommendation so we said we would work with them to see
where it would go. Because of the conditional use permit (CUP)
process we always felt that we could condition a project to be
compatible with the neighborhood. As we went through the
process it became apparent that the neighborhood had some
concerns with the density. Jentz continued that the RA-1 may be
more appropriate but that is a decision for the board.
Graham then asked if the board were not to approve the request
recommended in the report would the board amend the zoning or
deny the request and then the applicant could submit an amended
application?
Nygren explained to change the zoning to RA-1 would
considerably change the design of their project. They could submit
an RA-1 planned unit development (PUD) at which point we could
increase the density allowed by the RA-1 but not allow office
space.
Jentz went on to explain that the board has the ability to
recommend the annexation RA-2 request be changed to an RA-1.
At that point the applicant can determine if they want to go
forward or not.
Young noted the staff report is based on RA-2, so if we change the
zoning, the staff report is no longer specific to that zone so it
would have different findings of fact.
PUBLIC HEARING Garth Schuscke, 2245 Canvasback Ct — stated they have tried to
stay informed throughout this process. They had hoped to present
a compromise tonight between the residents and the developer, Dr.
Weber. They attempted to meet with him but were unsuccessful.
At the informal meeting on the 251h there were approx. 20
residents there along with city staff. Schuscke reviewed the
neighborhood recommendations, a copy of which is attached to the
minutes. He added with these recommendations in mind they
would ask the board to approve RA-lzoning for this property. He
then presented the signatures collected from the neighbors to the
planning board.
Debra Arnold, 2133 Harlequin Ct — stated she has lived at this
address for 12 years. She is an insurance auditor and inspector and
has inspected a number of apartment complexes in her career. She
indicated that there is a concern with the corrugated metal that has
been used on other projects because when painted it could chip.
She noted this complex would be built on what currently is a very
large open area, and the proposal provides very little space for
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of November 9, 2016
Page 13
children to play. She stated she would propose the RA-1 instead of
the RA-2 and asked that considerable attention be paid to the
quality of the design. She presented photographs of other projects
to the board.
Lorraine Reid, 705 Demarco Rd — stated she and her husband own
the home at 2256 Canvasback Ct. She has reviewed the project
and canvassed the neighborhood numerous times and everyone she
has talked to is upset. They are hoping that the project will be
mitigated in a way that the neighborhood could live with. She
submitted photographs to the board.
Mike Morgan, 265 W Front St, Missoula, stated that he is the
architect representing the applicant. He began by thanking the
board, staff and neighbors for all their help thus far and assured
them they have listened closely and have made adjustments to
their proposed design as a result. They feel this property is a
perfect transitional location from single family to urban
residential. Their goal is to meet the city's growth policy goals and
create a better living environment for everybody. They have
reviewed the current design of the proposal and are taking every
measure to mitigate impacts. They have adequate parking so there
is minimal parking on the street, good open space for people to
gather outside and are preserving most of the landscaping. Graham
asked if the metal siding was going to be used as more of an
accent cover and Morgan said yes. Morgan added the metal is
nothing like the metal used on the project in NW Kalispell.
Mary Kate Smith, 2209 Teal Dr — expressed concern with the RA-
2 and future plans as far as commercial business. She does not feel
it would be a good fit for the neighborhood.
Gordon Parsons, 2347 Coot Ct — stated he is concerned with the
potential loss of privacy of the existing residences with a 3 story
building as opposed to a 2 story building.
Gary Grace, 2002 Airport Rd — has lived on the north corner of
Teal and Airport Rd for 43 years. He feels a 2 story building rather
than a 3 story building, with some trees along the proposed berm,
would help mitigate the view.
Barb Gallagher, 2245 Canvasback Ct — stated she feels an 82 unit
building would not be best for the integrity of the neighborhood
and hopes that the developer will try to work with them on the
density.
Kimberly Milliron, 2312 Coot Ct — stated that they built their
home in 2003. She feels a 2 story building instead of a 3 story
building would provide more green space for children to play.
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of November 9, 2016
Page 14
Phyllis Lucht, 2351 Coot Ct — stated she was a part of the Sweat
Equity Program (Self Help) 13 years ago to help her get out of
renting and into her own home. She bought this particular lot for
the views of the mountains and now feels it's unfair that the views
are going to be given to renters.
Mike Morgan, representing applicant — stated what they are
proposing is what the residences can count on. There will be no
commercial use whatsoever. Their main concern is for the current
needs as well as the future needs of the community; however the
density must meet certain criteria in order for it to sustain itself
and succeed.
Garth Schuscke, 2245 Canvasback Court — stated he is concerned
that this project is being forced upon the existing residences; they
are not new homeowners buying property in a neighborhood
where an apartment complex already exists and know what they
are getting into. He feels that as existing residences they don't
know what to expect if this project is approved.
Valerie Stewart, 2194 Golden Eye Ct — stated that she is
concerned with the density as well as the building being 3 stories
as opposed to 2 stories and there not being enough open space.
MOTION
Skees moved and Young seconded a motion that the Kalispell City
Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt Staff Report #KA-
16-03 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City
Council that the property be annexed and the initial zoning for this
property upon annexation be RA-2 (Residential Apartment/Office).
BOARD DISCUSSION
Graham stated he is concerned whether the RA-2 is the right fit, he
feels an RA-1 is more suitable for the area and with a PUD
attached it would give the developer more flexibility but would
also decrease the density. Nygren agreed. Graham went on to say
that it would resolve the concerns of any commercial use that is
attached with an RA-2 as well.
Young agreed that the RA-1 zoning would be appropriate, whether
they choose to do a PUD or not.
Nygren stated the board could then amend the motion to apply an
RA-1 zone on the property based on public comment and give the
applicant the option of applying for an RA-1 PUD.
Young asked if the alternative was to deny the RA-2 and let the
applicant decide how they would like to proceed. Jentz advised
that yes that is an option and stated that an RA-1 would require
that the CUP be tabled.
Graham then asked the applicant if they were open to an RA-1
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of November 9, 2016
Page 15
zoning with this project. Dr. Weber said they would be, however it
would require they go back to the drawing board and drastically
change the design.
MOTION -AMENDMENT
Young moved and Kauffman seconded a motion to amend the
zoning from RA-2 to RA-1.
ROLL CALL - AMENDMENT
The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote.
ROLL CALL ORIGINAL
The original motion, as amended, passed unanimously on a roll
MOTION
call vote.
MOTION TO TABLE THE
Graham moved and Yerkes seconded a motion to table the
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
conditional use permit until the December 13, 2016 meeting.
ROLL CALL
The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote.
BOARD MEMBER SEATED
Board member Lorch returned to his seat.
OLD BUSINESS
None.
NEW BUSINESS
Nygren mentioned the next meeting will include a subdivision in
the Ashley Park area. He added it was previously Ashley Park
phase 9, located on Pintail adjacent to the bypass. There will also
be the annexation for the School District No. 5, located on Airport
Road and a work session to discuss the next round of zone changes
to the B-3 Core area zone.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:30 p.m.
NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the Kalispell Planning Board will be held on
Tuesday, December 13, 2016 6:00 p.m. and located in the
Kalispell City Council Chambers, 201 1" Avenue East.
Chad Graham
President
APPROVED as submitted/amended / /2016
Kari Hernandez
Recording Secretary
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting of November 9, 2016
Page 16
Planning Department
201 ts` Avenue East
Kalispell, MT 59901
Phone: (406) 758-7940
Fax: (406) 758-7739
ivww,kolisi2ell.com/plaiiiiiiiv,
PETITION FOR ANNE'XATION AND INITIAL ZONING
NAME OF APPLICANT:
MAIL ADDRESS: f�.en
CITY/STATE/ZIP:_ PHOt`rE: ® P
TNTE REST IN PROPERTY:
Other parties of Interest to he Notified:
m
0
m
C
m
01
PARTIES OF INTEREST: d
MAIL ADDRESS: 11e "f"
CITY/STATE/ZTP: p V fi AA 1, T On 12.0 PHONE: L06 --A t-11h - q) 92 q
TNT EREST 1N PROPERTY:,
PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING:
Address of (fie property:
Legal Description:"'" ��""r ��• �j�
(Section, Township,
Laud in project (ac):
Current cstnnated market value :i(
at 100% build out `- 7, ner
(Lot and Block of Subdivision; Tract #)
RE
(Attach metes and bounds as Exhibit A)
,.L 11
at 50% build out r , 00 a
Is there a Rural Fire Department RSID or Bond on this property Yes No - T
If yes remaining balance is $
The present zoning of the above property is: U N 12, e -i t
The proposed zoning of the above property is; - S,
State the changed or changing conditions that make the proposed amendment necessary:
The signing of this application signifies that the foregoing information is true and accurate based upon the
best information available and further grants approval for Kalispell Planning staff to be present on the
property for routine inspection during the annexation process,
(A p :ear atef
Return to:
Aimee Brunckhorst
Kalispell City Clerk
P.O. Box 1997
Kalispell, MT 59903
PETITION TO ANNEX
AND
NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL FROM RURAL FIRE DISTRICT
The undersigned hereinafter referred to as Petitioner(s) respectfully petition the City Council of
the City of Kalispell for annexation of the real property described below into the City of
Kalispell.
The Petitioner(s) requesting City of Kalispell annexation of the property described herein and
further described in Exhibit A hereby mutually agree with the City of Kalispell that immediately
upon annexation of the land all City of Kalispell municipal services will be provided to the
property described herein on substantially the same basis and in the same manner as such services
are provided or made available to other properties within the rest of the municipality.
Petitioner(s) hereby state that there is no need to prepare a Municipal Annexation Service Plan for
this annexation pursuant to Section 7-2-4610, M.C.A. since the parties are in agreement as to the
provision of municipal services to the property requested to be annexed.
The Petitioner(s) further herein express an ntent to have the property as herein described
withdrawn from the 5��%I ��4E'3�pz Ural Fire District under the provisions of Section
7-33-2127, Montana Code Annotated; and that incorporated into this Petition to Annex is the
Notice requirement pursuant to said Section; and that upon proper adoption of an ordinance or
resolution of annexation by the City Council of the City of Kalispell, the property shall be
detracted from said district.
In the event the property is not immediately annexed, the Petitioner(s) further agree(s) that this
covenant shall run to, with, and be binding upon the title of the said real property, and shall be
binding upon our heirs, assigns, successors in interest, purchasers, and any and all subsequent
holders or owners of the above described property.
This City hereby agrees to allow Petitioner(s) to connect and receive the utilities from the City of
Kalispell.
This City hereby agrees to allow Petitioner(s) to connect and receive all available utilities from
the City of Kalispell excluding solid waste services. MCA 7-2-4736 prohibits the city from
providing solid waste services to this property for a minimum of 5 years from date of annexation.
Petitioner/Owner Date
Petitioner/Owner Date
NOTE: You must attach an Exhibit A that provides a bona fide legal description of
the property to be annexed.
STATE OF MONTANA )
ss
County of Flathead County
On this day of u before me, the undersigned, a of ry Public for
the State of Montana, pe on lly appeared known
to me to be the person whose name is subscri ed to the foregoing instrument an acknowledged
to me that he/she executed the same.
tt�SN h in thlsUAff1tlNal*MltNRbove
aotaar�yf NOTARY PUBLICforthe
State of Montana
SEAL. Residing at Kalispell, Montana
My Commission Expires
rno�P� July 14, 2018
STATE OF MONTANA )
: ss
County of Flathead County
hereunto set in y Notary Seal the day and
rritten.
Notary Public, tate of Montana
Printed Na � V� (U—
Residing
My Co ission expires:
On this day of , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public for
the State of Montana, personally appeared known
to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged
to me that he/she executed the same.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my Notary Seal the day and
year in this certificate first above written.
Notary Public, State of Montana
Printed Name
Residing at
My Commission expires:
ESTIMATED COST OF SERVICES ANALYSIS (100% Build Out Scenario)
Project Name: Ashley Lofts, LLC - 2050 Airport Road
Date 9/29/2016
Calculated By: Kalispell Planning Department
Number of acres proposed to be annexed:
Number of lots to be annexed:
Total square footage of all the lots to be annexed:
Estimated market value of property:
3.8
165,528
$7,000,000
1, COST OF SERVICES
UNDEVELOPED
ACRES
DEVELOPED ACRES
COSTIACRE
TOTAL
Fire FY16 budget $2,735,865
0
4
S 107.37
S 408-01
Police FYi6 budget $4,452,984
0
4
$ 173.33
$ 658.65
General Gov't Services (FY
budget $5,387,859)
0
4
$ 167.50
$ 636.50
Subtotal
$ 1,703.16
SERVICE
NO, OF UNITS
COST/UNIT
TOTAL
Roads Lineal feet of road to be maintained
0
$ 5.05
$
Water based on number of ERUs
12
$ 185.51
$ 2,226.12
Sewer based on number of ERUs
72
$ 168.51
$ 12,132,72
Wastewater Treatment based on number of ERUs
72
$ 227.38
$ 16,371.36
Stormwater (calculated at a impervious
surface rate of 6 ERUs/Acre)
23
$ 67.87
$ 1,561.01
Subtotal
$ 32,291.21
TOTAL ANTICIPATED COST OF SERVICE
$ 33,994,37
2, ANTICIPATED
CITY ASSESSMENT REVENUE GENERATED
Total square foota a to be annexed:
165,528
Number of lots:
1
ASSESSMENT
AVE SQ FT
FY15116 ASSESSMENT
TOTAL
Storm sewer assessment Res. 5732 :
165,528
0.00999
$ 1,653,62
Street maintenance assessment Res. 5731 :
165.528
0.0223343
$ 1,171.07
Urban forest!y assessment capped $300 2er lot Res. 5729 :
165,528
0.00171
$ 283.05
Light maintenance assessment Res. 5733 :
165,528
0.00165
$ 273.12
Average water and sewer bill
$ 750.00
$ 750.00
SUBTOTAL ANTICIPATED REVENUE FROM ASSESSMENTS PER
LOT =
$ 4,130.87
TOTAL ANTICIPATED REVENUE FROM ASSESSMENTS FROM ALL LOTS =
$ 4.130.87
3. TAX REVENUE
Estimated market value of property:
$ 7,000,000.00
NO. OF UNITS
VALUE PER PROPERTY
TOTAL
Total assessed value:
1
$ 7,000,000.00
$ 7,000,000.00
TOTAL ASSESSMENT
REAL ESTATE TAX
TAXABLE VALUE
Total taxable value:
$ 7,000,000.00
0.02
$ 140,000.00
MILLS LEVIED
TOTAL
Tax revenue for all functions based on 781.1 mill levy):
0.7811
$ 109,354.00
TOTAL_ CITY TAX REVENUE (based on 205.6 mill levy) _ $28,784.00
4. lh
PACTFEES
UNIT
QUANTITY
COST PER UNIT
Total ewer ImpactFee:
ERU
72
$ 5,757.00
$414,504.00
Total ater ImpartFee:
ERU
12
$ 12,835.00
$154,020.00
Total Storm ImpactFee:
ERU
23
$ 1,121.00
$25,783.00
Total Police Impact Fee:(Res. 57
Per Unit
96
$ 31.00
$2,976.00
,Total ire Impact Fee es. 7 5 :
Per Unit
96
$ 367.00
$35,232.00
Total Project Impact Fee =
1 $632,515.00
5. TOTAL ANTICIPATED REVENUE GENERATED TO THE CITY (ITEMS 2 AND 3) $32,914.87
6. ONETIME IMPACT FEE PAYMENT TO THE CITY (ITEM 4) $632,515.00
7, NET REVENUE TO THE CITY PER YEAR (ITEM 5 - ITEM 1 } $1 07g 50
RECEIVED
OCT z' to 2016
KALISPELL PI.AWNG DEPARTMENT
Neighborhood Recommendations -Ashley Park Subdivision
RE; "Lofts At Ashley" Development Plan
November 9, 2016
Observations
The residents of the Ashley Park Subdivision recognize that the City of Kalispell
is one of the most rapidly growing cities in Montana. There is a great need for
affordable, good quality, rental housing.
The proposed building site for the "Lofts At Ashley" would be an excellent
location for a low density, multi -family building zone
■ The proposed 82 unit, three story apartment complex with accompanying 159
automobile parking lots would detrimentally impact the neighborhood integrity of
the Ashley Park Subdivision
>12ecommendationa
o Incorporation and zoning the 3.79 acre property RA-1: low density,
multi family units, maximum 55 units.
o Create a plan for a two story, 55 unit apartment complex
9 8 foot high, maintainable bean (landscaped with appropriate
trees) on the entire western side of the property will provide an
adequate buffer between the existing neighborhood residences
and the new apartment buildings as well as car parking lots.
Such a buffer will decrease the impact of vehicle and resident
noise, apartment and car lighting.
4 foot chain link fence on the western property border will
prohibit access to existing neighborhood property. Also a
drainage ditch along the west border to prevent flooding of
existing properties.
To decrease the impact to existing property on the north border
of the complex of Teal Drive and Airport Road the addition of
conifer trees to maintain the privacy of those home owners.
9 To fit in with the integrity of the existing subdivision it is
recommended to use stone for the exterior instead of the
corrugated metal. As the stone will retain its tasteful
appearance ror demades.
Ashley Park Subdivision Recommendations: Page I
1" 6 OAW,---P� C)�--s
co� VO &�e�
i4m?
7
�- 'rim �'Lc ✓Ili UiJ pr'.s�Clr�✓IC1�rr:G
1 4 ,
17
rez
�;,��� ,.� :.,�Lc.�� c_�i �-E-7 YAj'�.c'7'"[� 4G' vC.` v���J �//J✓F,-�'Ji'P' ! _ � ��.�
�L:.l_ .��.� �:.. /„iL•lr:�.l.� �i �r�."C 4�-i �"'�i��Cx'"�,:�.`�i� �^"-5LJ
(�� �'l. ?�� G�il,� � � G(/ �.�` ��� G• � C-�L Z j�, � L a-� c: � `ice �r�-�'LCA
�'; . ,. ,`, u �' * 1� '• J/�jlrG'Z J� � {/;LCrr��Jfja �-i� •�G�ls:,�+-r � %Fib r��l j
��� _�L.t%-Z�; 'a` �=� �� Lc'-C G`4 �— •�.�� (.� �f�!'ry� �/�L. ��, � LL•�f �-CC.�`
(i1C-Gc '/�+,1I//1✓(/L1;�,,�.�,. Q..�7 �i%t�i`�i Lt, L WG`—c,
V V S {Jf V
/ , ,�-/cfp� �.''(!�% .i1!-{`L•�Yl.(���-� ��-L�ifi%�'7K. G'` 'LC�3 G(..� l
[`L � •+� �I I I � 1 JG' f � � �V� Coil ` 'i! �� Y�j1 +y
G� �f4 �JIGrJ��yGL'{ 1
Michelle Anderson
From: Jarod Nygren
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 9:08 AM
To: Michelle Anderson
Subject: FW:
From: Connie Gomez [mailto: ets luskalis II maii.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 5:13 PM
To: Jarod Nygren
Subject:
Mr. Nygren:
I want our neighborhood Integrity preserved!
We want R-4 Zoning, the current zoning, to remain intact! ! 'Though we live a few streets down off Teal, we do
NOT want a large complex down the street. Teal is the main access road for us, and we do not want
congestion!! Turning onto Airport Road can be a challenge now.
We hope you appreciate the fact that we want neighborhood integrity preserved! !
Thank you for your consideration!
Sincerely,
Dennis & Constance Gomez
2116 Merganser Drive
Kalispell
Pets Plus Pet & Home Sittin
Serving the Flathead Valley
406.257.7155
"We stay when you're away!"
Michelle Anderson
From:
Jarod Nygren
Sent:
Tuesday, October 11, 2016 4:57 PM
To:
Michelle Anderson
Subject:
FW: Ashley Lofts
From: James Reid [mailto:iimreid0centuryteI.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 4:54 PM
To: Jarod Nygren
Subject: Ashley Lofts
October 11, 2016
COMMENTS REGARDING THE LOFTS ATASHLEY LLC
Jared,
We will be at the planning work session tonight but I wanted to make comments that would take too much time at the
meeting.
We are two of the few property owners within 150 feet of the project who were first notified by your letter dated (I just
noticed that there was no date on that letter). Our property at 2256 Canvasback Court is on the corner with Teal Drive
that backs up against the proposed project. Our house is a rental, with the same lady living there for the past 13 years.
We were gravely disappointed that the dentist who purchased the property gave no thought to the impact on the
adjacent subdivision when he decided to plant his second high-rise complex on the lot we all know as "Ashley Park".
I began talking to the other residents who were notified and found that they all were as alarmed as I was. They went to
the media and articles appeared in the Daily Inter Lake and Beacon last week. One of the residents on Canvasback
shared a flier that she had made up and distributed to some of her neighbors. I called Tim Gard who owns the house
between ours and Glenn Wills and he was ready to fly in for tonight's meeting until he talked to Tom Jentz who told him
it had been cancelled. I talked to Tim again yesterday and he said he would have flown in for this meeting but for the
fact that Tom told him it was cancelled. Tim is not very happy about that.
Last Sunday I made copies of the last letter we received from your office Dated October 41h, and the map of the project
showing the 150 ft. area of notification, and started going door to door in the Ashley Park Subdivision. I started at the
end of Teal Drive and worked my way toward Airport Rd. In 5 hours on Sunday and another 3 yesterday, I met a lot of
very nice people. I told them that I was canvassing the neighborhood because i was a fellow homeowner and I was
concerned that the majority of the residents had no information of what was going on. That turned out to be correct.
They all expressed how much they loved their neighborhood and how dismayed they were to hear about the proposed
project. A majority of them said they planned to send an e-mail to the planning office to voice their concerns about the
negative impact this project will make on the place they call "home". I had time to visit only about a third of the
residents and feel it is wrong for the city not to have notified all residents of the subdivision regarding a proposal of this
size that would affect every one of them.
Jim and i feel that the loss of view, privacy, property value, ability to sell, increase in noise level, not to mention vehicle
congestion in the last block of Teal Drive where it intersects with Airport road will negatively change the integrity of the
adjacent neighborhood irreversibly.
Sincerely,
Lorraine & Jim Reid
Michelle Anderson
From: Jarod Nygren
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 3:08 PM
To: Michelle Anderson
Subject: FW: lofts at ashley
From: lance robson[mailto:lanceeikrobson(ayahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 2:27 PM
To: Jarod Nygren
Subject: lofts at ashley
My name is Lance Robson and I live in Ashley Park subdivision as a home owner.
I strongly oppose any change in zoning for this neighborhood 1 would like to keep it R4 zoning.
Do not ruin my neighborhood
Lance Robson
2148 Harlequin ct
Kalispell Mt 5o901
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
Michelle Anderson
From: Jarod Nygren
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 3:37 PM
To: Michelle Anderson
Subject: FW: I oppose The Lofts of Ashley rezoning and building project on airport road.
From: Tim Gard [maiIto: comicvisions@gmall.corn
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 3:15 PM
To: Jarod Nygren
Cc: jimreid@centurytel.net
Subject: I oppose The Lofts of Ashley rezoning and building project on airport road.
I oppose rezoning this area to allow this apartment complex. I would have attending the meeting today in person
had I not been advised the meeting had been rescheduled to November.
Approving a new zone rating would grossly negatively impact on the neighborhood. RA2 also allows office
commercial space in a residential community.
This property was purchased for development a year ago. However the notice to interested parties was only sent
to adjoining properties a short time before the public hearing. As such I have not yet had adequate time to fully
research all the hardships this training will cause.
I'm unsure if the freedom of information laws apply to city, county, state but I would like to formally request
copies of any correspondence between your office and the developers including telephone logs, email, faxes,
texts and hard copy letters so that all interested parties can be fully aware of any existing discussions pro or con
on this proposed project.
1. Any new structure this near to the airspace of an active existing small airport would have building height
restrictions. Has the FAA been consulted and approved this proposal?
2. I'm requesting the results of your study that verifies that green space requirements for this entire area have
been met prior to and if any structure are allowed with occupancy beyond a single family dwelling.
3. I read recently that a new school is going in just south of this proposed project. This area is already under
traffic stress prior to the schools construction and this project would endanger public safety by adding so much
residential density in such a small area.
4. This is an established single family dwelling community. This project unnecessarily will reduce the value of
every property within 1 mile. Although it may appear superficially that this project would increase city coffers
with new tax revenue, any such predicted profits will be offset as existing properties in the area are devalued
due to this project.
5. Im in the process of finding out if airport road may meet or currently be a part of a scenic highway corridor
and as such any apartment facility would diminish not enhance this status.
Please deny this request and only approve single family dwellings, if anything at all, on this property
Respectfully
Tim Gard
2252 Canvasback court
Kalispell, MT. 59901
Tim(tz�,timgard.com
Www.timgard.com
Michelle Anderson
From: Jarod Nygren
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 2:06 PM
To: Michelle Anderson
Subject: FW:
From: Jan Tow [ma i Ito. ibt76(d outlook. corn I
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 12:59 PM
To: Jarod Nygren
Subject:
I was concerned to hear of the request for a 96 apartment development to be built
against my subdivision. i just turned 90 and as an active driver(yes, and still a good one),
the idea of the traffic congestion is a basic concern to me. Thank you, Jan Tow
Michelle Anderson
From: Jarod Nygren
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 10:46 AM
To: Michelle Anderson
Subject: FW: Lofts at Ashley
From: ctmanning@charter.net [maiIto: ctmanningacharter.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 10:43 AM
To: Jarod Nygren
Subject: Lofts at Ashley
Hello - I'm writing to you in regards to the new apartment complex that is planned to be built at the corner of
Airport Road and Teal Drive. I read about this in the paper just last week and have to say I was quite surprised
and a bit upset over it. My family lives on Ruddy Duck Drive, I realize that it's a few blocks away from the
proposed apartments but it will still have impact on our neighborhood. The Ashley subdivision is a mostly
peaceful area with just duplexes and single family homes. A giant apartment complex will take away the small
subdivision feeling. My husband and I would ask that it be R-4 zoning to preserve the neighborhood
integrity.
Thank you for your time,
Trey & Christy Manning
Michelle Anderson
From: Scott Smith [scotttexsmith@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 8:18 PM
To: Jarod Nygren
Subject: Lofts of Ashley
To whom it may concern,
I am sending this email in regards to the proposed building of apartments on Airport Road and Teal
Drive, Lofts of Ashley.
I and my family are completely against the building of these apartments for many reasons.
I am originally from Atlanta, Georgia and I have seen first hand the problems that this type of
housing brings in.
The first problem is the traffic. With the school bond passing and the proposed building sight of a
new school on Airport Road this would increase the amount of traffic on Airport Road significantly.
Secondly with the increase of traffic comes the possibility of the increase of crime. I have seen it
time and time again with apartments. The City of Kalispell already has issues with the number of
police officers that are on duty and to add more to their plate would be reckless on the city's behalf.
I have proudly called Kalispell home for the last twenty years but lately it is turning into another
Missoula. I know you can't stop progress but you can build these types of buildings in an area that is
more suitable. The families that live in the proposed being area are perfectly happy with the way
things are and by allowing these apartments to be built would only add undue stress to those families.
Kalispell is growing but at some point we have to say enough is enough.
Also these apartments would take away the view of The Rockies that many of the families bought
their house for. Now they will be forced to look at apartments instead of the mountains. The
Flathead Valley was known for it's beauty and slow going pace but all of this being ruined by these
kinds of buildings. If the builder had wanted to build homes, such as the existing ones in the area,
that would be one thing but adding another grotesque apartment building is another story altogether.
The area is currently zoned R-4 and it needs to stay that way. These apartments would significantly
drop the property value in the area, as most people don't want to live near these types of buildings.
For these reasons we are against the building of The Lofts of Ashley. Keep the Zoning R-4 and
keep the property owners, who pay property tax, happy.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Scott Smith
Michelle Anderson
From., Theodore Witzel [tpwitzel@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 9:27 PM
To: Jarod Nygren
Subject: Lofts at Ashley Park Sub Division
We request the R-4 Zoning to remain to preserve neighborhood integrity. We are residents at 2232 Pintail Ct.
Theodore and Patricia Witzel
Michelle Anderson
From: Kayla Fender [corasmom2212@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 5:22 PM
To: Jarod Nygren
Subject: Comments/concerns re: Lofts at Ashley
J MJ
Dear Jarod Nygren,
It has recently come to our attention that a developer has purchased the Ashley Park property at the
intersection of Airport Rd. and Teal Dr., and that said developer is proposing to build a 96-unit
apartment complex with corresponding parking areas on that property.
Our opinion regarding this venture is as follows:
1) Our primary preference is that the property be developed into a recreational area. As large as our
development is, Begg Park (baseball fields and adjoining playground and basketball court) answers
only partially for the needs of so many residents, and we have long felt the need for more space to be
devoted to common use for leisure activities.
2) Our primary concern is that the apartment complex would be or become a low-income housing
development, lowering the property values of current residents, and potentially the quality of the
neighborhood as well. Even if the Lofts at Ashley is not intended by the developer to be low-income
housing, the prospects of so many apartment units concentrated in such a limited area and the un-
prestigious view of the waste water treatment plant across the street may alter expectations and,
consequently, reality.
3) Finally, the concept of five 3-story apartment buildings and 177 parking spaces confined within the
spacial limits of the Ashley Park property seems excessive, to say the least; literally overshadowing the
adjoining neighborhood and with no provision made within the complex for the recreational needs of
the apartment residents.
All this being said, and in the event that a recreational park is out of the question, we respectfully but
strongly urge that the City of Kalispell elect to uphold R-4 zoning with regard to the Ashley Park
property, for the sake of preserving neighborhood integrity, as well as respecting the wishes and
concerns of the community immediately affected by any development within their environs.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Yours respectfully,
Bruce & Kayla Fender
2212 Ruddy Duck Dr.
Kalispell
Michelle Anderson
From: Heather Snedigar [hsnedigar@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 9:22 PM
To: Jarod Nygren
Subject: Lofts at Ashley
Dear Jarod Nygren,
I am writing to voice my concerns about the construction plans for the Lofts at Ashley off Airport Road.
I am concerned about preserving the integrity of our neighborhood. I have lived in this neighborhood for
three and a half years and feel that building five three story apartment buildings will degrade the neighborhood.
I am very concerned that traffic will be greatly affected by adding the planned 96 apartments. These added
apartments will considerably increase traffic on an already busy Airport Road.
The zoning of the proposed property does not support a project of this magnitude. I agree that affordable
housing is needed in the valley, but this is the wrong location.
Thank you for listening.
Sincerely,
Heather Snedigar
Resident of Ashley Park Subdivision
Sept via the Sammib Galaxy S�3 6. an AT&T 4G f IT smartplione
Michelle Anderson
From: BARBARA SLAGHT [jb65slaght@msn.com]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 6:57 PM
To: Jarod Nygren
Please zone the Ashley lots R-4 to preserve neighborhood integriy.
Michelle Anderson
From: Britney Wheeler [bcdewheeler@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 9:19 PM
To: Jarod Nygren
Subject: Tuesday work session
Hi Jarod! Please forward this email or bring it to work session as I am unable to be at the meeting in person. My
name is Britney Wheeler and I live at 2138 Merganser Drive. I was just informed of the proposed apprtments
and parking spaces that a developer wants to put at the entrace of our neighborhood off of Airport Road. While
I understand that growth is inevitable, it makes me sad to think that someone wants to put 3 story complexes on
this end of town. We have owned the house we live in for 9 years and have always enjoyed this more quiet part
of town. It's actually kind of ironic that I just found out about this because on Monday I had to tell our realtor
that we reconsidered putting our house on the market because you just can't beat this location right now. I am
begging you all to consider keeping the zone R-4 so that such a huge monstrosity wouldn't be put right at the
front of our dear little neighborhood. If apartments have to go in, then it would be amazing if they would be less
in number and therefore less parking spaces. I hate to think of all those trees being leveled just for almost two
parking spaces per unit. Besides the property, though, is all the children we have in our neighborhood. Our kids
play outside with the neighbors all the time, and 96 homes being put right at the end of our street would up the
traffic in a substantial way and that makes me nervous just thinking about it. Like I said, I understand that
change happens but if if could be on the smaller scale, I believe we could continue to keep that friendly
neighborhood vibe that we have all come to appreciate. Thank you for your time and good luck
Britney Wheeler
Michelle Anderson
From: Laura Hawkins [theladyhawk@live.com]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 6:55 PM
To: Jarod Nygren
Subject: Lofts of Ashley, LLC
Dear Mr. Nygren,
We were very disappointed to hear that a large apartment complex may soon be under construction in our cozy
little neighborhood. We chose this area, because it has a beautiful view of Lone Pine, and the Swan Mountain
Range, while being close to town.
While there seems to be more crime on the west side of town, because of the low income housing and
apartments, we are thankful that our quiet little neighborhood has not been affected so far. It is comprised of
single-family homes and duplexes, who value the appearance of their homes and safety of their surroundings,
and even watch out for each other when out of town, etc.
We are very concerned that a huge apartment complex will not only bring crime and heavy traffic, but also will
lower the value of our home.
Please do your very best to preserve the R-4 zoning in our Ashley Park Subdivision and neighborhood.
Thank you for you kind consideration.
Sincerely,
Jeremy & Laura Hawkins
2220 Pintail Court
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Michelle Anderson
From: Mary Ryckman [maryryckman70@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 8:43 PM
To: Jarod Nygren
Subject: Lofts at Ashley Lcc
Hello Mr. Nygren,
I was totaly upset when I read the Daily Interlake and found out that what I always thought was a Park, is now
going to have 5 apartment building, 3 stories tall. I can not believer that there is room for all that, and can not
for the life of me believe what the traffic will be like on Airport road. If you can not keep it as a park Please
consider an R-4 Zoning. This is the only way we will be able to "sort of keep the intrgity of our neighborhood.
Please reconsider this plan.
Mary
Mary Ryckman
2207 Pintail Ct
Kalispell, MT 59901
406-371-3030
Michelle Anderson
From: Lynne Lippy [allredlynne39@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 6:40 PM
To: Jarod Nygren
Subject: Planning board mtg. Lofts at Ashley, LLC application
We are residents of the Ashley Park area. We just heard about the purposed building of 96 apartments by
Airport RD.
We oppose this being done for these reasons.
1. need to keep the area a R-4 Zone.
2. build one level duplexes or one level condos for seniors.
3. building 96 apartments will only cause more traffic and danger on that area. Airport road can't handle that
many cars going to and from work. Causing troubles on getting on the road. With the school being built out
here is already causing more traffic than the road can handle. That is why we don't need more. Seniors need a
nice place to live and they don't travel out as much as other citizens would if there was an apartment bldg. like
being purposed.
4. if this person wants to build apartments purpose they be built on the land on Cemetery Rd. behind the gas
station.
5. We are against the purposed plan.
From: Lynne and John Lippy
Ashley Park Residents
Michelle Anderson
From: Barb Montana [montana.babs@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 8:30 PM
To: Jarod Nygren
Subject: Proposed apartment buildings at Lofts at Ashley
Good morning Mr. Nygren,
I would like to see the land that has been purchased for the purpose of building 96 apartments and a very large
parking area (Lofts at Ashley) be zoned as an R-4 Zone, the same as the rest of the Ashley Park Division.
I live on Pintail Court. I love this area of town and I treasure it's quiet, safe community. I think it is fine to
build more homes/condos/single family houses and smaller apartment buildings but to bring in such large
buildings will not only spoil many people's views of the beautiful mountains but bring in the after-effects of
such large apartment building complexes, i.e. congested roads, noise, and crime. We need to preserve the
integrity of this neighborhood.
Please consider my request when you sit down with the planning board. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Barbara Hart
2211 Pintail Court
Kalispell, MT 59901
Michelle Anderson
From: mont1120@bullittmail.com
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 6:13 PM
To: Jarod Nygren
Subject: Lofts at Ashley Objection
lack and Leslie Spillman
2159 Ruddy Duck Ave
Kalispell, MT59901
October 10, 2016
Re: Lofts at Ashley Planning Board Application
It would appear the meeting set for October 11th, 2016 has been cancelled in lieu of a
proposed "work session" in order for the LLC to "informally" propose the disastrous apartment
building proposal located at Teal and Airport Road in the Ashley Subdivision. I am certainly
unsure why this tactic is being employed, nonetheless, myself and my wife Leslie place our
most strenuous objections to the City of Kalispell's Planning Board allowing any variance
permitting a 96 unit apartment complex on this property.
I have talked to several homeowners in the Ashley Subdivision, and I have found ZERO support
for this project. Every single person I have spoken to does not want this project to receive
the variance needed to proceed. The construction of this project will destroy the nature and
integrity of this quiet and well maintained area that has flourished in the city of many
years.
This subdivision is home to working class citizens such as firefighters, construction
workers, Sheriff Deputies, plumbers, woodworkers, roofers,
911 dispatchers, and a host of other tax payers who have worked incredibly hard to preserve
their small piece of the American dream, owning a home. Now, a year old LLC has decided to
buy a small parcel of property and build a monstrous apartment complex which will destroy the
value and nature of the neighborhood.
Allowing this zoning variance of a conditional use permit would be a slap in the face of
voters who passed a tax to build a new school in the Airport Road area. Voters rose to meet
the need in the County to do so, and to now add a tax, while at the same time drastically
lowering home values would be incredibly damaging to the City for any future requests from
its citizens.
We are requesting the City enforce the R-4 zoning regulations as is in place now. Let the
Lofts of Ashley LLC build duplexes or houses that are affordable to the working woman and man
of this area, thus keeping the neighborhood intact.
The cities map of Airport Road reveals huge tracts of open land that could be used for multi
family dwellings. That the proposed builders want to shoe horn in a massive 3 story human
warehouse is a poor use of a tiny tract of land located in an R-4 zone. If zoning is subject
to change anytime a builders wants it done, why bother with zoning at all?
Respectfully;
Jack and Leslie Spillman
i
Michelle Anderson
From: Jarod Nygren
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 3:22 PM
To: Michelle Anderson
Subject: FW: October 11, 2016 Planning Board - Lofts at Ashley, LLC application requests
From: Gordon Parsons[maiIto: urgent. parsons(agmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 2:16 PM
To: Jarod Nygren
Subject: October 11, 2016 Planning Board - Lofts at Ashley, LLC application requests
I currently own a house that backs up to the proposed development. This high density housing project is
incompatible with all the houses and duplex townhouses that currently exist in Ashley Park development. It
should not be approved!
A development of this nature will result in a total lack of privacy, cause a serious devaluation of the homes
backing up to this proposed development, and probably render them unsaleable in the future. To propose such a
development at this time when Ashley Park is probably 99 percent built out is unconscionable and a disservice
to all who own homes in Ashley Park.
When the Ashley Park residents purchased their homes, we were told this area would remain a park by the
developer and builder. I would never have purchased a home in this area had a large apartment development
been disclosed or proposed. I realize the owner's circumstances may have necessitated his selling of the
property, but how many Planning Board members would want this type of development at the entrance to their
subdivision?
I urge you to do what is right for 99 percent of the homeowners who have invested in their futures by
purchasing their homes in a normal R-4 residential development and disapprove this application request.
Gordon Parsons
756-1265
P0BOX 2510
KALISPELL MT 59903-2510
Michelle Anderson
From: Jarod Nygren
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 11:21 AM
To: Michelle Anderson
Subject: FW: Lofts at Ashley Creek
From: Tim Carter[mailto:tim@chuckolsonrealestate _com]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 11:02 AM
To: Jarod Nygren
Subject: Lofts at Ashley Creek
The proposed development will have an adverse affect on property values and the integrity of the surrounding
neighborhood.
I would urge the zoning for this property if annexed to be the same as Ashley Park Subdivision R-4
Warmest Regards
Tim Carter
2124 Harlequin Ct
Kalispell, MT. 59901
Cell: 406-253-9164
Fax: 406-752-8894
Michelle Anderson
From: Jarod Nygren
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 11:22 AM
To: Michelle Anderson
Subject: FW: Proposed apartment development at Airport Rd. and Teal Dr.
From: Tim Bochman [mailto�timbochmanCdgmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 11:03 AM
To: Jarod Nygren
Subject: Proposed apartment development at Airport Rd. and Teal Dr.
Dear Mr Nygren,
I am writing you to express my concern about the proposed 100 unit apartment development being considered
for the plot of land at the corner of Airport Rd. and Teal Dr. As a member of the neighborhood affected by this
proposed development (My family and I live at 1974 Teal Dr) I do not feel that such a high density
development is in the best interest of our neighborhood. Please direct the developer to pursue an alternate
project for this parcel of land that conforms with the same zoning as the rest of the neighborhood and preserves
the family friendly atmosphere of our neighborhood.
Thanks for your consideration and support.
-Tim
Tim. Bochman
1974 Teal Dr.
Kalispell, MT
Michelle Anderson
From: Jarod Nygren
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 1:09 PM
To: Michelle Anderson
Subject: FW: apartment complex
From: Marie[mailto:cmwbellavitaC@montanasky.netl
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 12:28 PM
To: Jarod Nygren
Subject: apartment complex
I am not able to attend meeting about the plans to build a large apartment building and parking on
corner of Teal Dr.and Airport Rd. I am extremely concerned about the plans as I live a few blocks
back from the area on Eider Dr. Teal Drive is already used as a freeway as cars speed through it for
a short cut to wherever they are going. It gets lots of fast traffic and we would be subject to more if a
large apt building goes in on that corner. An apt complex that size does not belong in a neighborhood
that is mostly single family homes. Also I feel that all the area should be notified when this is
happening as it affects all of us. Piease have consideration for us as home owners.
Mrs. Marie G. Williams
2100 Eider Dr.
Kalispell, Mt. 59901
4aunsti, This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
7 fe rf*g www.avast.com
Michelle Anderson
From:
Jarod Nygren
Sent:
Monday, October 10, 2016 1:10 PM
To:
Michelle Anderson
Subject:
FW: Lofts at Ashley
From: Keith Valentine[maiIto: keith.valentine@mannmortga eg coml
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 12:12 PM
To: ]arod Nygren
Subject: Lofts at Ashley
Good afternoon,
I am unable to attend the work session, but wish to voice my concern. I am a home owner on Harlequin Court and wish
to preserve the integrity of the neighborhood with ONLY R4 zoning. I do not wish to have a large apartment complex
within our neighborhood, especially on land that was supposed to be a park for all to enjoy, as I understand it, as a part
of such a large subdivision being approved originally.
Keith Valentine
Loan Officer NMLS #405843
Mann Mortgage #2550
Cell: 406-253-0464
Office: 406-204-3653
Fax: 406-751-6282
AA& Mann Mortgage
Apply online at:
httpsl_/_keithvalentine.mannmortgage.com/
1-h;_s e-ncill is ar31e1itvJ LI I';r Eia,'trornc C mn'=_:ni rt; ` 5 F'r : a=.y Act 16 L.I S (- Sec 2510-":'1, anti may r;c!�tz in r]ata that , ronf;de.nti�l, pr m' e:-, y 'I n3rn-
F: th'ic persc! tial r;#tu!r;:+tion. as tl!ril tr:rn: ! dru,r;=� i! if Et !drr;r;-I ea: } _F_,;fey Act !crii«:',Ii,'t l f, �nfi_ entia[ fnfr,rrz2,+,iari. The
r�.nditionCtl up°�'Gri your, Lf:at yeti �.�li !r=pit t crn[ide^t!al#y and i11 <act.nrd-irce -,- ith .sp{.i„-.al�ie laLv. ensure th,a? su_,;� data lsr't used or disGiosed �Yucg), for
Me fnnited Rurp;use fa= ,hir•h it's beirig prc-vir''tf a,u: r:)II notify and Gcope , to v i}t! Ls J ea' U .a!,AhOc: erf d,, :;,sure ar ij 8 of a;y
a rde ; rai Ir:forr,tiali:;n. By ar of l:ng and a.'v!eVVln tl'e Co;rfider;:al inf,rnat crt Yc:u :gran k indemnify us aca!r;sE antr hisses Or expans:ns i,ic?-od[! d
"era t118i y��a [:lily it"'�i' +S a re51!IL Gf -illy n!','a !h 0!';'C-,! us ; or di�!,'iG; .+1"? ._,+;I'E�,". �.;2w3 due tO YGLF 3G15 nr ;JiiliSsl6!;3 1. a. p f-. ,ther Ilion; Lho r- [pi--
,&;dves this e--mad he. or She f3 - qunstMd Ll.-, I,mFIT II•y nottf , us of the delivery and ; eiuro !G r;ti all do+a ryo dgli�-erF<d
Michelle Anderson
From: Jarod Nygren
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 10:16 AM
To: Michelle Anderson
Subject: FW: Ashley Neighborhood Concern
From: deputygriz [maiIto: deputygriz(ftahoo.corn
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 9:30 AM
To: Jarod Nygren
Subject: Ashley Neighborhood Concern
Jarod,
My family and I are residents who live at 2132 Harlequin Court in the Ashley Park subdivision. I also
previously lived on Salem Street for over 3 years, so I am very familiar with this neighborhood.
One of the many draws to living in this neighborhood is the "family neighborhood" feel. We wanted a
neighborhood where our family felt safe for our kids to ride their bikes and hang out with other neighborhood
kids. We have greatly enjoyed this area.
I recently heard that someone had purchased the large lot on the corner of Airport Road & Teal Drive, and I was
hoping someone was going to put in a park, similar to the one across from the Lakers field. When I heard that
there were plans being drawn up for a large apartment complex, my heart sank.
One big reason we chose this neighborhood for our children was that all of the homes were single-family or
townhomes. To hear that someone wants to change that neighborhood landscape with an apartment complex is
very disheartening.
I was born and raised in the Flathead Valley, and I love to call this place home. I always wanted to raise my
children in the valley, and wanted a nice family neighborhood for my children to grow up in. I feel that building
a large apartment complex would greatly take away from the neighborhood that has taken years to build.
I fully understand that population is ever-increasing in the valley, and housing is at a shortage. With that being
said, I don't believe building a bunch of apartments, especially a three-story multi -unit building in a single-
family neighborhood, is the answer. I love that the City Council has begun building apartments up near the
bypass by Glacier HS, and in undeveloped areas it makes sense. But to build an apartment complex in a single-
family neighborhood makes no sense and ruins the years of development to make this neighborhood what it has
become.
I am asking the Planning Board to reconsider changing the zoning in this neighborhood to allow someone to
build something that doesn't belong in this neighborhood. If they want to develop homes and townhouses, I am
all for it. Just please don't allow them to change the entire landscape of this great family neighborhood.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Josh Buls & Family
2132 Harlequin Court
406-459-0337
Michelle Anderson
From: Jarod Nygren
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 10:17 AM
To: Michelle Anderson
Subject: FW: Housing
From: Ellie Bissell [rmailto:thebiss5@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 9:36 AM
To: Jarod Nygren
Subject; Housing
I am Ellie Bissell , and very concerned about the building plan for Airport Road. With the amount of traffic the
school will have,buses and parents taking and picking up there students and expected traffic from the plan
building, and many people using the Teal road, where in the world are the new lights for traffic control going to
be, and I would like to know if this is a listed LOW COST housing units, many things, also no need for 3 story
units. please have the R-4 zone rule come into effect, I drive past the area every day and know it was not kept
up as a park but this many house units is not good for the road area, and speed on the road. Thank you for
bringing this to attention. Mrs. James Bissell'
Michelle Anderson
From: Jarod Nygren
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 8:19 AM
To: Michelle Anderson
Subject: FW: Lofts at Ashley, LLC application request
For PB
From: Greg Griffin [mailto: riffin,mbi mail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 6:51 AM
To: Jarod Nygren
Subject: Re: Lofts at Ashley, LLC application request
Jarod,
As a current resident and previous developer and builder, I would like to add my comments to the consideration
for the zoning change of Lofts at Ashley.
In the past, and in another state, I was a home builder working in partnership with my friend who developed
land. I'm familiar with the rezoning processes and the right of people to pursue the rezoning of land for their
profit. For the land that I developed in the past, in a different state, we choose a piece of land that was zoned
for farming, adjacent to an R-4 on two sides, a main road on the third and farm on the 4th. We then sought R-4
zoning to keep the area, neighborhood and streets in a common theme. There were no objections and we added
to the city's plan, the neighboring property values, and the neighbors' desire.
In the case of the Lofts at Ashley, I realize the difficulty in splitting the difference between the appearance of
Airport Rd being commercial or other zoning and the Ashley Park neighborhood. I also realize that in the back
of the mind of the Planning Board is that someone has paid money to purchase land with the intent of making
profit. They have already invested more money in developing plans. I would propose, that their investment in
the land was a known risk. They had no guarantee and hoped to make a lot of money, but they do this over and
over. Some they win and some they lose_
For this particular case, I do believe that the board should STRONGLY consider the recent developments of the
school that will be built on Airport Rd. with the recent passing of the bond. This will eventually reduce the
speed limit of Airport Rd as an abundance of children from Ashley Park will be walking across the road to
school and the speed limit only I/4 of a mile away is 25mph. If the road were to continue at a residential speed,
this property in question becomes more desirable for R-4. The speed limit will change the perceived
enviromnent of the road as well.
You will be setting precedence with your decision that the school will be surrounded by apartments or homes.
A mix use zoning in this area sets up for more apartment to be built, because of their strong profitability as
opposed to the environment that people move to this area to enjoy --residential. Adjacent to Ashley Park to the
south is more property that will be well suited for R-4 and most likely be developed sooner with the passing of
the school. Once again, does this area of Kalispell become known for the abundance of apartments.
The context of the school and the adjoining R-4 properties makes this property in question prime for additional
R-4 zoning and not bring down the property values of homes in the Ashley Park development. I do believe that
not only adjacent properties will be negatively affected, but all properties will negatively affected as the
entrance to our neighborhood will take an inner-city, low-income feel. Imagine all of the other newer residential
developments throughout Kalispell and the valley. How many of them have apartments spanning their
entrance? Adding to the congestion of their entrances. Adding non -residence foot -traffic with dogs eliminating
on our lawns.
It is your job to plan into the future for what this area will look like, not just this property. I would strongly
request the Planning Board to close their eyes and imagine this area growing with more and more home
surrounding the school and not filled with apartments. Which would you like surrounding your schools.
There is a place for apartments to be expanded. I realize the need for balance in housing. I would propose that
plan for Kalispell not be to mix zoning in this area but increase the already established R-4 that is growing
here. I do believe that an approval of this rezoning would not show good future vision or planning. Please
reject this request. If had the money today, I would invest and develop for R-4 in that property right now.
Respectfully Submitted
Greg Griffin
2216 Ruddy Duck Dr.
406-260-5190
Michelle Anderson
From: Jarod Nygren
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 8:19 AM
To: Michelle Anderson
Subject: FW: Lofts at Ashley
For PB
From: Deborah Daub [mailto:deb.daub@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2016 11:11 PM
To: Jarod Nygren
Subject: Lofts at Ashley
To Jared Nygren:
As a home owner/resident of Ashley Park I am requesting that the R-4 Zoning be maintained to
preserve neighborhood integrity.
Thank you,
Deborah Daub
2134 Teal Drive
Kalispell, MT 59901
Michelle Anderson
From: Jarod Nygren
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 8:20 AM
To: Michelle Anderson
Subject: FW: Ashley Creek Apartment Complex
For PB
From: Rory Brown[maiIto: gozaraozarian@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2016 8:26 PM
To: Jarod Nygren
Subject: Ashley Creek Apartment Complex
Hello,
This weekend I was made aware of a plan to develop an apartment complex in the Ashley Creek subdivision. I
believe this is something the whole subdivision should be able to weigh in on, but only a few residents were
made aware.
This complex is too large for this area. The zoning for this should be reduced in order to force a smaller
complex, or perhaps block it all together. The effect on the neighborhood would have a negative i npact due to
the number of residents in such a small area, including traffic, and statistically would bring higher crime rates.
I feel that I would need to sell my house in order to keep the same quality of neighborhood if this is built. If this
area was maintained and had park equipment in it, it would be used by the kids in this subdivision.
Please keep this in mind as this goes forward and thank you for your time.