01-09-17 Work Session Agenda and MaterialsCITY COUNCIL
WORK SESSION AGENDA
Monday, January 9, 2017 at 7:00 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers, 201 First Avenue East
A. CALL TO ORDER
B. DISCUSSION ITEMS
1. Light Maintenance Fund Update
2. Lofts at Ashley Apartment Complex Conditional Use Permit Request, KCU-16-
05 (located at 2050 Airport Road)
3. Silverbrook Planned Unit Development Amendment Request (located on the
southwest corner of Church Drive and U.S. Highway 93)
C. PUBLIC COMMENT
Persons wishing to address the council are asked to do so at this time. Those addressing
the council are requested to give their name and address for the record. Please limit
comments to three minutes.
D. CITY MANAGER, COUNCIL, AND MAYOR REPORTS
E. ADJOURNMENT
UPCOMING SCHEDULE / FOR YOUR INFORMATION
City Offices Closed — Monday, January 16, 2017 — Martin Luther King Jr. Day
Next Regular Meeting — TUESDAY, January 17, 2017, at 7:00 p.m. — Council Chambers
Next Work Session — January 23, 2017, at 7:00 p.m. — Council Chambers
Growth Policy Sub -Committee Meeting — January 24, 2017, at 6:00 p.m. — First Floor Conference
Room
Reasonable accommodations will be made to enable individuals with disabilities to attend this meeting.
Please notify the City Clerk at 758-7756.
Watch regular City Council sessions live on Charter Cable Channel 190 or online at the Meetings on
Demand tab at www.kalispell.com.
Page 1 of 1
MONTAN
City of Kalispell
Post Office Box 1997 - Kalispell, MT 59903
Telephone: (406) 758-7701
Fax: (406) 758-7758
To: Doug Russell, City Manager V -
From: Susie Turner, P.E., Public Works Director
Re: Light Maintenance Fund
Meeting Date: January 9, 2017
BACKGROUND: The light maintenance fund has been operating under the new assessment
criteria since the final adoption of the FY 15/16 budget. Subsequently, the health of the fund has
sufficiently improved, affording Council's directive for the installation of new luminaries as
capital improvement projects to be added to the FY 16/17 budget. At this meeting staff will take
the opportunity to review and receive comments from Council for the following:
• The status of the fund
• Flathead electric program for LED conversion
• New luminaire installing protocols
• Potential for LED conversion for city owned lights
• Potential requisition of luminaires located in Glacier Village Greens Subdivision
PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE
REPORT TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MEETING DATE:
M01ffANA
Doug Russell, City Manager
Jarod Nygren, Senior Planner
Planning Department
201 V Avenue East
Kalispell, MT 59901
Phone: (406) 758-7940
Fax: (406) 758-7739
www.kalispell.com/planning
KCU-16-05 — Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Lofts at Ashley 55 unit
Apartment Complex
January 9, 2017 (Work Session)
BACKGROUND: A request from Lofts at Ashley, LLC for a conditional use permit for a 55 unit multi-
family apartment complex within the RA-1 (Residential Apartment) Zoning District. The 55 unit multi -family
apartment complex would be comprised of a 2-story 12-plex, 2-story 14-plex, partial 3-story 20-plex and nine
(9) 2-story attached units (single-family row house design). The residential units will be comprised of 34 2-
bedroom units and 21 3-bedroom units. The site plan also depicts parking, a berm acting as a buffer between
residences to the west all located on a 3.8-acre parcel at 2050 Airport Road, Kalispell.
During their regularly scheduled meeting on January 3, 2017, the Kalispell City Council considered the
conditional use permit request. After lengthy discussion the council tabled the motion to approve and
requested a work session to discuss several unresolved issues. Staff has evaluated the three conditions of
concern and developed the following language for Council's consideration. Additions are underlined and
deletions are struck out:
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, and colors as shown on
the architectural renderings submitted. For the reason that the proposed structures are on a larger scale
than the abutting neighborhood and serves as an entry into the neighborhood, materials that are de-
signed to show an aged agrarian "weathered" look are incongruous with the established existing
neighborhood and shall not be used.
13. A minimum 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 and Recreation Director. The toe of
the berm shall be setback a minimum distance from the westerly property line in order to provide for
drainage swell/feature to address storm water runoff.
14. The applicant shall provide a minimum 4' tall fence along the westerly property line in an area in which a
fence does not exist at the time of construction.
Questions for the Council to consider:
1. Are the proposed amendments to conditions 2, 13 and 14 appropriate?
Report compiled: January 4, 2017
c: Aimee Brunckhorst, Kalispell City Clerk
Planning Department
201 lst Avenue East
Kalispell, MT 59901
Phone: (406) 758-7940
Fax: (406) 758-7739
www.kalispell.com/planning
REPORT TO: Doug Russell, City Manager p
FROM: Jarod Nygren, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: KCU-16-05 — Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Lofts at Ashley 55 unit Apartment
Complex
MEETING DATE: January 3, 2017
BACKGROUND: A request from Lofts at Ashley, LLC for a conditional use permit for a 55 unit multi-
family apartment complex within the RA-1 (Residential Apartment) Zoning District. The Council approved
the second reading for the initial zoning of RA-1 on the subject property on December 19, 2016. Multi -family
apartment complexes are permitted within the RA-1 Zone provided a conditional use permit is obtained per
27.09.030 of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. This application request was before the planning board the last
two months and was originally submitted as a 96 unit complex, reduced to an 82 unit complex and now a 55
unit complex. The 55 unit design stems from the zoning designation of RA-1, which provides for a maximum
of 55 units on the subject property. The 55 unit multi -family apartment complex would be comprised of a 2-
story 12-plex, 2-story 14-plex, partial 3-story 20-plex and nine (9) 2-story attached units (single-family row
house design). The residential units will be comprised of 34 2-bedroom units and 21 3-bedroom units. The site
plan also depicts parking, a berm acting as a buffer between residences to the west and landscaping.
The subject property is located at 2050 Airport Road, at the southwest corner of the intersection of Airport
Road and Teal Drive. The property can be legally described as Tract 1 of Certificate of Survey #19815, in the
SW4 of Section 30, Township 29 North, Range 21 West, P.M.,M., Flathead County, Montana.
The Kalispell Planning Board held a duly noticed public hearing December 13, 2016, to consider the
application request. A motion was presented to take the Lofts at Ashley off the table, as it was tabled prior to
discussion at the previous planning board hearing subsequent to the RA-1 Zone being approved. Staff
presented staff report KCU-16-05 providing details of the proposal and evaluation. Staff reported that the
proposed CUP was compatible with the zoning, the growth policy, and the applicant has met the burden of
proof requirements. Staff recommended that the Planning Board adopt the staff report as findings of fact, and
recommend to the City Council that the CUP be approved, subject to seventeen (17) conditions.
During the public comment portion of the hearing, the applicant spoke regarding the CUP request.
Additionally, two members of the general public spoke regarding the CUP request. One member of the public
representing the neighborhood spoke. They were thankful of the progress of the project to date, but still had
concerns regarding the design of the units in regards the use of steel, reclaimed wood, windows and
landscaping. They were concerned with the materials because they did not fit the neighborhood and would be
difficult to maintain long term. They felt that more uniform or traditional materials would be appropriate for
the project. They were also seeking to eliminate second floor windows along the west and increase
landscaping along the north side of Teal Drive for privacy. There being no other public testimony the public
hearing was closed. A motion was presented to adopt staff report KCU-16-05 as findings of fact, and
recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the CUP be approved, subject to conditions.
The Board discussed the public's concerns regarding the materials at length, at which time a motion was
presented to amend condition #3. The amendment stated that the architectural review committee should take
into consideration public comment and Board discussion prior to the issuance of the building permit. Board
discussion concluded that amending condition #3 was not appropriate, as the motion failed 3 in favor and 3
opposed. Another motion was presented to amend condition #13 to change the 6' tall landscaped berm to a 7'
tall landscaped berm in order to screen the project more for the neighboring residences. Board discussion
concluded that the amendment was not appropriate, as the motion failed 1 in favor and 5 opposed. Further
discussion concluded that the CUP was appropriate, and the original motion passed unanimously on roll call
vote.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit KCU-16-
05, with the seventeen (17) conditions of approval.
FISCAL EFFECTS: Approval of the request would have minimal fiscal impact to the City.
ALTERNATIVES: Deny the request.
ATTACHMENTS: CUP Staff Report KCU-16-05, Minutes of the December 13, 2016, Kalispell Planning
Board and Application Materials
c: Aimee Brunckhorst, Kalispell City Clerk
Return to:
Kalispell City Clerk
PO Box 1997
Kalispell, MT 59901
City of Kalispell
P. O. Box 1997
Kalispell, Montana 59903-1997
GRANT OF CONDITIONAL USE
APPLICANT: Lofts at Ashley, LLC
F.O. Box 534
Bigfork, MT 59911
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 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.
ZONE: Residential, RA-1
The applicant has applied to the City of Kalispell for a conditional use permit to construct a
multi -family apartment complex comprised of a 2-story 12-plex, 2-story 14-plex, partial 3-story 20-
plex and nine (9) 2-story attached units (single-family row house design). The residential units will
be comprised of 34 2-bedroom units and 21 3-bedroom units. The site plan also depicts parking and
a berm acting as a buffer between residences to the west all located on a 3.8 acre parcel at 2050
Airport Road, Kalispell, Montana in the RA-1 zoning district.
The Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission, after due and proper notice, on
December 13, 2016, held a public hearing on the application, took public comment and
recommended the application be approved subject to six conditions.
After reviewing the application, the record, the KPD report, and after duly considering the
matter, the City Council of the City of Kalispell, pursuant to the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, hereby
adopts Kalispell Planning Department Conditional Use Report #KCU-16-05 as the Council's
findings of fact, and issues and grants to the above -described real property a conditional use permit
to construct a multi -family apartment complex comprised of a 2-story 12-plex, 2-story 14-plex,
partial 3-story 20-plex and nine (9) 2-story attached units (single-family row house design). The
residential units will be comprised of 34 2-bedroom units and 21 3-bedroom units with parking and
landscaping pursuant to the site plan submitted on an existing 3.8 acre parcel located at 2050 Airport
Road, Kalispell, Montana in the Residential, RA-1 zoning district subject to the following
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 building permit.
4. 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".
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
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.
9. 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 13.
10. If the storm main along the westerly property boundary is relocated, it shall be constructed per
the City of Kalispell Construction and Design Standards.
11. 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.
12. 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 in substantial compliance with the submitted renderings and approved
by the Parks and Recreation Director prior to issuance of the building permit.
13. 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 and Recreation
Director. The toe of the berm shall be setback a minimum distance from the westerly property
line in order to provide for drainage swell/feature to address storm water runoff.
14. The applicant shall provide a minimum 4' tall fence along the westerly property line.
15. Prior to any work within the public right-of-way along Teal Drive, the property/owner will
work with the Parks and Recreation Director to establish tree protection zones and file a permit
for any tree removals with the Parks Department.
16. A minimum of 500 square feet of land per unit which has recreational value as determined by
the Kalispell Parks and Recreation Director, or recreational amenities equivalent to the fair
market value of 500 square feet of land shall be provided.
17. Prior to filing the building permit issuance, the Site Review Committee shall review the design
and location of the snail delivery site. The mail delivery site shall not impact a sidewalk or
proposed boulevard area.
Dated this 3rd day of January, 2017.
STATE OF MONTANA
: ss
County of Flathead
Mark Johnson
Mayor
On this day of January, 2017, before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared Mark Johnson,
Mayor of the City of Kalispell, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within
instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same on behalf of the City of Kalispell.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my Notarial Seal, the day and
year first above written.
Notary Public, State of Montana
LOFTS AT ASHLEY
REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
STAFF REPORT #KCU-16-05
KALISPELL PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DECEM 3ER 1, 2016
A report to the Kalispell City Planning Board and the Kalispell City Council regarding a
request from Lofts at Ashley, LLC for a conditional use permit (CUP) for multi -family
residential apartments within the RA-1 Zone. The property is located at 2050 Airport
Road in south Kalispell. A public hearing has been scheduled before the planning
board for December 13, 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
Petitioner / Owner: Lofts at Ashley, LLC
P.O. Box 534
Bigfork, MT 59911
Summary of Request: A request for a conditional use permit for a 55 unit multi-
family apartment complex within the RA-1 (Residential Apartment) Zoning District.
Multi -family apartment complexes are permitted within the RA-1 Zone provided a
conditional use permit is obtained per 27.09.030 of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance.
The multi -family apartment complex would be comprised of a 2-story 12-plex, 2-story
14-plex, partial 3-story 20-plex and nine (9) 2-story attached units (single-family row
house design). The residential units will be comprised of 34 2-bedroom units and 21
3-bedroom units. The site plan also depicts parking, a berm acting as a buffer between
residences to the west and landscaping.
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.
Existing Land Use: 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.
1
Existing Zoning: The subject property is located within the RA-1 (Residential
Apartment) Zone. The Kalispell Zoning Regulations state that the RA-1 Zone is "a
residential district intended to provide for urban areas for multi -family use and
compatible non-residential uses of medium land use intensity. It should be served
with all public utilities and be in close proximity to municipal services, parks, or
shopping districts. This zoning district would typically be found in areas designated as
urban residential or high density residential on the Kalispell Growth Policy Future
Land Use Map."
Size: The subject property is 3.8 acres.
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.
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
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.
Relation to the Growth Policy: The Kalispell Growth Policy Future Land Use Map
designates this area as Urban Residential development. The project is in compliance
with the growth policy in the following ways:
"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 be extended to the property at the time
it undergoes development. The property will be served by the Kalispell Fire
2
Department. Similarly, the property will be served by the Kalispell Police
Department.
'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 subject property is zoned RA-1, which provides 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.
"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."
The multi -family project is being developed at a density similar to the single-
family densities in the surrounding developments. Additionally, in conjunction
with the city's development standards, the conditions of approval adequately
mitigate any potential adverse impacts to the neighboring residences. The
proposed multi -family housing units will provide additional housing options in
an area lacking multiple housing options. Multiple housing options in south
Kalispell will be important as the area grows with the construction of a new
elementary school.
Utilities and Public Services:
Sewer:
City of Kalispell
Water:
City of Kalispell
Refuse:
City of Kalispell
Electricity:
Flathead Electric Cooperative
Telephone:
CenturyLink
Schools:
School District No. 5 and Elrod Elementary
Fire:
City of Kalispell
Police:
City of Kalispell
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:
I
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 four groups of
buildings proposed. The southernmost building will be comprised of nine
(9) 2-story units. These units are designed very similar to what would be
seen with attached townhome development and could be considered
similar to single-family development. These units are similar to what
would be expected if the property were to be developed with an R-4
Zoning. The west side of the development has a 2-story 12-plex building.
This building has been oriented as to not have any decks facing the
residences to the west and have been setback from the west property
boundary 5 Fin order to limit the perceived scale and bulk of the building.
The north side of the development has a 2-story 14-plex. These units have
been reduced to 2 stories to limit the perceived scale and bulk of the
buildings. Lastly, there is a partial 3-story 20-plex located at the east side
of the development. This building is proposed as 3-story only in the middle
of the structure to reduce its scale and also give it architectural variation.
This building is located far enough away from the single-family residences
to the west that they should not be impacted by the height, bulk and
location of the building. The location of the building along Airport Road
makes this larger building an appropriate location for these units. In
addition, the buildings meet all of the required height, setback, parking,
landscaping, and recreational requirements limiting the impacts to the
surrounding neighborhood.
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 significantly from 96 units to
55 units. The redesign has addressed some of their initial comments;
however, prior to building permit issuance their approval will be required.
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.
El
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 55 units the zoning code requires 83
spaces and the applicant has provided 107, exceeding the minimum
parking requirement by 24 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 29,057 square
feet of undeveloped area that can be used for recreation. There is additional
open space surrounding the development that is being used for setback
area and landscaping.
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 (20
parking spaces) in such close proximity to the residences. Staff feels that
an adequate berm would be 6' tall and at a 3:1 slope along the entire
westerly boundary. A 6' tall berm at a 3:1 slope along the westerly property
boundary may require the relocation of the unit at the southwestern most
portion of the development. It will also require the redesign of the
turnaround area at the southwest portion of the development. 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.
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.
5
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.
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.
2
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 twenty eight
(28) students K-12 would be anticipated from 55 dwelling units.
j. Parks and Recreation: Section 27.34.060 of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance
requires approximately 27,500 square feet of recreational amenities for the
development based on 500 square feet of land, or equivalent value in
recreational amenity based on 55 units. The design shows approximately
29,057 square feet of area that could be classified as recreational area,
therefore meeting the recreational amenity requirement.
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 with the construction of 55 multi -family units.
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 107
parking spaces of which approximately 20 are adjacent to single-family
residences to the west. Additionally, there is a turn -around area located at
the southwest area of the subject property that is adjacent to the
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.
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
7
W 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
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 the conditions of approval listed
below. 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 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
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
building permit.
4. 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".
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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 13.
IO.If the storm main along the westerly property boundary is relocated, it shall be
constructed per the City of Kalispell Construction and Design Standards.
11. 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.
12. 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 in substantial compliance with the submitted
C
renderings and approved by the Parks and Recreation Director prior to issuance
of the building permit.
13. 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 and Recreation Director. The toe of the berm shall
be setback a minimum distance from the westerly property line in order to provide
for drainage swell/feature to address storm water runoff.
14.The applicant shall provide a minimum 4' tall fence along the westerly property
line.
15. Prior to any work within the public right-of-way along Teal Drive,. the
property/owner will work with the Parks and Recreation Director to establish
tree protection zones and file a permit for any tree removals with the Parks
Department.
16. A minimum of 500 square feet of land per unit which has recreational value as
determined by the Kalispell Parks and Recreation Director, or recreational
amenities equivalent to the fair market value of 500 square feet of land shall be
provided.
17. Prior to filing the building permit issuance, the Site Review Committee shall
review the design and location of the mail delivery site. The mail delivery site
shall not impact a sidewalk or proposed boulevard area.
10
KALISPELL CITY PLANNING BOARD & ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
December 13, 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, Charles Pesola &
Ronalee Skees, Tom Jentz, Jarod Nygren and PJ Sorensen
represented the Kalispell Planning Department.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Yerkes moved and Lorch seconded a motion to approve the
minutes of the November 9, 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
TEAM DEVELOPMENT, LLC
A request from Team Development, LLC for a major subdivision
PRELIMINARY PLAT
of an 8.83 acre parcel into 37 single-family lots. The subject
SOUTHSIDE ESTATES
property is located approximately 100 feet south of the
intersection of Pintail Drive and Merganser Drive.
BOARD MEMBER STEPPED
Board member Young stepped down from the discussion and vote
DOWN
on the Southside Estates because he is representing the applicant.
STAFF REPORT
Jarod Nygren, representing the Kalispell Planning Department
reviewed Staff report KPP- 16-02 for the board.
Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and
Zoning Commission adopt staff report KPP-16-02 as findings of
fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the
preliminary plat Southside Estates be approved, subject to the
conditions listed in the staff report.
BOARD DISCUSSION
Kauffinan asked about proposed utility plans. Nygren stated that
preliminary engineering plans have been submitted and reviewed
by public works.
Lorch asked where the sound barrier wall would be placed.
Nygren advised east of bike path on the property line. Lorch
asked if that could be changed and Nygren said only if the MDT
approved it, which they have not indicated that they would, but
planning staff would support it.
Graham asked about placement of utilities and which direction
they would be extending for future use. Nygren advised they
would be extended to the cast but there is no evidence at this time
that the property to the east will develop in the city.
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the ineetina of December 13, 2016
Page I 1
PUBLIC HEARING
Rory Young — Jackola Engineering, 2250 Hwy 93 S. stated he is
representing the applicant. Young said there are no plans to
upgrade any pumps or circuitry, public works will just be doing a
cosmetic upgrade.
MOTION
Lorch moved and Kauffman seconded a motion that the Kalispell
City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt staff report
KPP-16-02 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell
City Council that the preliminary plat Southside Estates be
approved, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report.
BOARD DISCUSSION
None.
ROLL CALL
The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote.
BOARD MEMBER SEATED
Board member Young returned to his seat.
SCHOOL DISTRICT N0.5
A request from School District No. 5 to annex a 25.28 acre parcel
ANNEXATION
into the city and zone the land P-1 (Public) upon annexation. The
property is located at the 2100 block of Airport Road.
STAFF REPORT
Jarod Nygren, representing the Kalispell Planning Department
reviewed Staff report KA-16-04 for the board.
Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and
Zoning Commission adopt Staff` Report #KA-16-04 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 P-1 (Public).
BOARD DISCUSSION
Lorch asked if there is a way to determine the costs for the cost of
services analysis. Nygren advised because it's a school and is tax
exempt they will be paying assessments and impact fees but
without knowing what structures, etc. will be going there it's
difficult at this point to determine costs. At this time it's being
assessed as vacant land.
PUBLIC HEARING
Aaron McConkey — 3819 Lower Valley Rd. stated he is
representing the applicant. McConkey noted the school district is
working with the neighbors to the north to clean up where the
property line is.
MOTION
Young moved and Skeen seconded a motion that the Kalispell City
Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt Staff Report #KA-
16-04 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 P-1 (Public).
BOARD DISCUSSION
None
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the ineeting of December 13, 2016
Page 12
ROLL CALL
The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote.
LOFTS@ ASHLEY
A request for a conditional use permit for a 55 unit multi -family
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
apartment complex within the RA-1 (Residential Apartment)
Zoning District. The property is located at 2050 Airport Road in
south Kalispell.
BOARD MEMBER STEPPED
Board member Lorch stepped down from the discussion and vote
DOWN
on the Lofts at Ashley due to a conflict of interest.
MOTION
-Kauffman moved and Skees seconded a motion to take the Lofts at
Ashley off the table.
VOTE BY ACCLAMATION
The motion passed unanimously on a vote by acclamation.
STAFF REPORT
Jarod Nygren, representing the Kalispell Planning -Department
reviewed Staff report KCU-1 6-05 for the board.
Nygren noted that there will be some discussion from the
neighbors in regards to the materials proposed as well as the
design of the project; along with some new recommendations they
have for the applicant. He advised the planning board to keep
these in mind when hearing the public, and addressing them before
approving this application.
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 pen -nit, be approved subject to the conditions listed
in the staff report.
BOARD DISCUSSION
None.
PUBLIC HEARING
Mike Morgan - 265 W Front St, Missoula - representing applicant
- mentioned materials they are using for this project have minimal
impact on the environment and are easy to replace if damaged.
Garth Schuscke - 2245 Canvasback Court - outlined the new
neighborhood recommendations and gave a copy to the planning
board, which is attached to the minutes.
Lorraine Reid - 2256 Canvasback Ct. - pointed out that the
majority of the neighbors do not want rusty, recycled metal siding
on this project. They would like something more conventional.
MOTION
Skees, moved and Pesola seconded a motion to adopt Staff Report
KCU-16-05 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell
City Council that the conditional use per-trift, be approved subject
to the conditions listed in the staff report.
BOARD DISCUSSION
Graham stated he feels the board should be moving forward with
Kalispell City Planning Board
MilILLICS Of the meeting of December 13, 2016
Page 13
the design standards to the Architectural Review board. Jentz
advised the board to look at the neighborhood conditions briefly to
be sure they reflect what you think you are voting on verses what
the applicant is offering and that you want to nail down some
things and not assume what was offered tonight becomes a
condition. Skees then asked if they needed to make an amendment
to the conditions. Jentz replied yes, if you heard something tonight
that you would like to see as part of the project you need to add
that as part of the project. He went on to say that they .need to give
the architectural review committee some direction and that the
planning boards job is to address neighborhood compatibility.
Young stated he feels the applicant has gone out of their way to
accommodate the neighborhood requests and that he doesn't feel
it's necessary to guide architectural review committee beyond
what the applicant has requested and that the board has sufficiently
addressed the neighborhood. Graham agreed but expressed some
concern with the visual compatibility of the neighborhood and
giving some guidance to the architectural review committee on the
materials used. Skees and Kauffman noted that they feel the hoard
is asking the architectural review committee to pick one product
over another and that is out of their scope. Graham went onto to
say that he feels the two go hand in hand.
MOTION — AMENDMENT TO
Graham moved and Skees seconded a motion to amend condition
CONDITION NO.3
#3 to state that the Architectural renderings are required to be
submitted to the Kalispell Architectural Review Committee for
review and approval taking into consideration public comment and
board discussion prior to issuance of a building permit.
BOARD DISCUSSION
Graham advised the reason he wants to amend the condition is so
that everyone's voice is heard. Skees confi n-ned w/ Graham that
the board is not telling the Architectural Review Committee how
to decide just giving them more opinions to help them decide.
Graham confirmed.
ROLL CALL
The motion failed on a roll call vote of 3 in favor and 3 opposed.
MOTION — AMENDMENT TO
Graham moved and Pesola seconded a motion to amend condition
CONDITION NO. 13
#13 to change the 6' tall landscaped berm to a 7' tall landscaped
berm.
BOARD DISCUSSION
Kauffman asked if changing the berm to 7' would mean that it
would have to be 7'and could not undulate. Graharn confirmed.
Pesola noted that the applicant has expressed in his renderings and
his comments that he will, to the best of his ability, provide 7'
heights where needed.
ROLL CALL
The motion failed on a roll call vote of 1 in favor and 5 opposed.
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the ineeting of December 13, 2016
Page14
ROLL CALL — ORIGINAL
The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote.
MOTION
BOARD MEMBER SEATED
Board member Lorch returned to his seat,
OLD BUSINESS
None.
NEW BUSINESS
Jentz mentioned the next meeting will include the KRHC PU_D
Amendment, the Kalispell North Town Center Preliminary Plat,
the B-3 Core Area Re -zone and the Stampede Packing
Annexation.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:15 p.m.
NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the Kalispell Planning Board will beheldon
Tuesday, January 1.0, 2017 at 6:00 p.m., located in the Kalispell
City Council Chambers, 201 1 "Avenue East.
Chad Graham
President
APPROVED as submitted /2017
Kari Hemandez
Recording Secretary
Kalispell City Planning Board
Minutes of the meeting ol'December 13, 2016
Page 15
KI
Neighborhood Recommendations for The Lofts at
Ashley 12-8-2016
I would like to thank the board for recommending to the city
council the RA-1 zoning. I
I would also like to thank Dr. David Weber, the developer of
The Lofts at Ashley for his modifications to his original plans,
And his participating at last weeks meeting with the residents
of Ashley Park Subdivision.
w
At that meeting some final concerns of the residents wer"
discussed. I would like to share the residents
recommendations with you tonight, I
-Any steel used for the exterior walls and roof would be of a
heavy gauge and of colors that blend with the overall color of
the exterior walls.
-The reclaimed wood used for siding must be treated to resist
aging and fading with time to maintain its original look.
-That there be no 2nd floor windows on the west facing side
of the buildings, of the south and west buildings, to help
maintain privacy of exist—ing' homes,
- The addition of mature, (as Possible) conifer trees be
placed on the north side of Teal Drive in numbers to the
satisfaction of the homeowners at that location. These too
would be for privacy.
- That the residents original request for an 8 foot landscaped
berm with a 3:1 slope, be reduced to a 7 foot landscaped
berm, as a compromise to the 6 foot berm proposed by the
developer.
If Dr. Weber is willing to meet these conditions, the residents
of Ashley Park Subdivision feel he will have met his obligation
to working with his neighbors.
In closing I would like to thank all the residents of Ashley Park
for your efforts and contributions in this process.
4-- il-li It J
Lrl
T-
CP
;A -
CIO
CIO
C rri
z
0
A
I
I
a
C,1
r-,
L-,
Planning Department
201 1st Avenue East
Kalispell, MT 59901
Phone: (406) 758-7940
Fax: (406) 758-7739
www.kalispell.com/planning
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
PROPOSED USE:
OWNER(S) OF RECORD:
Name:
1-C2�31 a7�_ 4/e � Ile_
Mailing Address:
City/State/Zip: AVE Phone: 5!?o --1 S`10
PERSON(S) AUTHORIZED TO REPRESENT THE OWNER(S) AND TO WHOM ALL
CORRESPONDENCE IS TO BE SENT:
Name: _i ,L►1G lh'le�s't - d s0a-ale' �
Mailing Address: 9 5 tP J �rrv?
City/State/Zip: �/� �: 001Z Phone: �' � -
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (Refer to Property Records):
Street ,t_ ! Sec. Town- Range
Address: /y^D.� / e! No ship No.
Subdivision Tract Lot Block
Name: � r. a Q5 N.(s). No(s). No._
1. Zoning District and Zoning Classification in which use is proposed:
14 -f
2. Attach a plan of the affected lot which identifies the following items:
a. Surrounding land uses. V,
b. Dimensions and shape of lot.
C. Topographic features of lot. Ll
d. Size(s) and location(s) of existing buildings
e. Size(s) and location(s) of proposed buildings.
f. Existing use(s) of structures and open areas.
g. Proposed use(s) of structures and open areas. tz
h. Existing and proposed landscaping and fencing. Iz
1
3. On a separate sheet of paper, discuss the following topics relative to the proposed
use:
a. Traffic flow and control. tZ, l ,
b. Access to and circulation within the property.
C. Off-street parking and loading. tom'
d. Refuse and service areas.
e. Utilities. V_
f. Screening and buffering.
g. Signs, yards and other open spaces.
h. Height, bulk and location of structures. F
i. Location of proposed open space uses. tr
j. Hours and manner of operation.
k. Noise, light, dust, odors, fumes and vibration.
4. Attach supplemental information for proposed uses that have additional
requirements (consult Planner).
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury and the laws of the State of Montana that the
information submitted herein, on all other submitted forms, documents, plans or any
other information submitted as a part of this application, to be true, complete, and
accurate to the best of my knowledge. Should any information or representation
submitted in connection with this application be incorrect or untrue, I understand that
any approval based thereon may be rescinded, and other appropriate action taken. The
signing of this application signifies approval for the Kalispell Planning staff to be present
on the property for routine monitoring and inspection during the approval and
development process.
Applicant /Signature Date
2
265 West Front Street Missoula, Mt 59802
406-728-8847 www.HM-Assoc.com
12/5/2016
The Lofts at Ashley is envisioned as a mixed -scale multifamily village designed to be in
keeping with traditional Rocky Mountain architecture. It is our intention to create a high
quality, human scaled environment which balances architecture, landscaping and the
necessities of automobile ap rking. We believe that urban infill in the form of multi -family
housing is the best way to limit suburban sprawl and preserve Montana's open spaces.
Architecture
The architecture of The Lofts atAshley is based on local traditions, drawing inspiration
from Montana's rural buildings, such as barns, mills and cabins. Each of the 4 proposed
buildings is unique in scale, orientation and configuration. They have been arranged on the
site to best preserve the most significant mature trees, to create attractive street elevations
along Airport Road and Teal Street, and to mitigate impact on the adjacent existing
neighborhood. The scale of each building is visually reduced as much as possible by
varying roof lines, incorporating dormers, and using several different cladding
materials/colors. Windows and individual balconies also vary in size and type and are
oriented away from the adjacent existing homes. Exterior materials will include stained
wood cladding, galvanized metal cladding/roofing, asphalt single roofing and stained post
and beam timber detailing.
Landscaping
50% of the site is set aside for landscaping with approximately 40% of existing trees being
preserved. The main feature of the landscape design is a 30,000 square feet, 51 feet wide, 6
feet high berm and landscape buffer with dense coniferous plantings designed to diminish
any impact on the adjacent neighborhood. Elsewhere, existing trees, as well as new
plantings, are used extensively to visually anchor and scale down the new buildings. The
landscape design also functions to lessen the visual impact of the parking areas by breaking
up rows of parking with landscape islands and by buffering parking from adjacent city
streets. A licensed Montana Architect will create the final landscape design.
Parkin
The plan is provided with ample on -site parking at a rate of 1.9 parking spaces per dwelling
unit. The parking areas have been planned along driving lanes within the core of the site
and are thus well screened from the public right of ways and the adjacent neighborhood by
landscaping and new architecture. The driving lanes and parking rows are curvilinear with
frequent landscape islands and pedestrian crosswalks which are intended to act as traffic
calming features. It is intended that no parking rows should exceed 15 spaces in length and
all rows should be bordered by landscaping. Also, parking has been oriented and bermed to
limit any visual or lighting impact on the adjacent neighbors. Exterior lighting along the
driving lanes and parking areas will be pedestrian scaled and all fixtures will be "full cut-
off" in order eliminate light pollution. It is intended that light levels be 0 foot candles at all
the property lines.
A
z
O �
W
� 2
w ts)
z I—
z
lu
0 LL
K O
^o
z Zo �o
z<
LL
0
q
�p Jfj
!,
Low
f)l
. . . . . .
. . . .
. .
IV
Q.
LL
LU
cl:i
'.L7
fl
EIM
M
W
cm
f
6.
rri,
t6
am
40,
Mal
UP
2050 Airport Rd SECTION 19, T28N., R.21W.
NORTH TRACT 1 of COS 20138
,O r ,
07
(' Subject PropertyJUst
G PARK
r �
+ �F •,` ,, "�` REi; ARK aR ,: i.w 150ft. Mailin
cv
7.
_ . fiP
Ott
S MEA�O`1JS Q Y i1R
`` iw�
T.VA=99
�.. 14 `
1 �-
Not
worm
cc
lot
*�
r
Q
Jbb�•� 2
_� _. .._.. �•...r�.. �;�..['`� ..� __+1 /► --, DWY.iaQr
WDDENT" 4' �r
11 i •.:
_►, x mwAP^r
Date: Sept. 20th, 2016 0 Kalispell Pla0oning Dept.
600
FilePath:l\2016\mailings\09202016 Feet
By: SANDS SURVEMG.I.. Topography Of.
2V)Ilflge Laap RaS.spcll, M7 59901 TRACT 1 of COS 20138
(406) 755.6481 IN SEC.19, T.28N., R.21W., P.M.,M., FLATHEAD COUNTY
JOB IN 447401
DATE: May 13.2016 NG1LE.: t'=J9'
FOR: HOFFMANN, MORGAN & ASSOCIATES
OWNER LOFTS AT ASHLES', LLC.
Notev
V"aB D'h : NAVD BR per Clty Benchmark
" so NESr Wabutmentwhere Ahport Roadv¢s/ea MhlcyC—k
El—d.n.t'V - 293d.69'
Boundary shorm 4 record per COS 20138
>1a 31..Y.k sb
qY J
- r ao11 Ydx O 1 �
�. Flw. c JSl0.15 a.eb md. g/•-
Srorou.epn
' • 14gf "'P C ft.
994
Aee1EL sr �a, 09.1r� Asuey <'raa MT
%off, s:19 Lu11934r
TEAL DRD'E
P.Intl hl-u10. Poner 31
OI
4'nn IJ 1. L�13361 N8838 I fi B865"
P.1. HI.D
1 rMr �y 1
Lw�v11YNtl Trmd r eaW%
, -.Mmun . o6Ysr.ncva [
�.ma�nl3Pb_ ,
DG4:ND.
L Faand l/2"Rehar&Cap (7974S) S �ofLvu a
Boundary AdJoNlug '^ . �'� 1
Bnwdary SLhjml � _ f
Pnre�ent
O
O
I �
F
er 1 ne 1 nde.gnnnn • m6•r ova � � C
J Pn..1 r .r fluBalnN 1
Irons s'ndr.•+n,p %
trt.Mrcan.<atr.
r M1.1 ?; T 1 of
m Mvmud �Wrie COS
20138
eh fl.rin
? irrfq�ttan�/ iwwul Rax rL'
wire
a
. i Sbrfl A® NitA �
Nisu7 vsa./v
6i.n.Ib. rw
flp lhmh 3l.r mr m.
)
Ird�u�
Y- su.i
I G4l.+, � SIwtl20.tt.0
r.aere...a r +Ytl -lnee eew �l le3u;
Pa.n 1 .r ov+3s1
r..,aL a s! ran.= xvsyse
BBB'3B'S2W 2B8. o0 P.r A , ''
IMPORTANT NOTE
28th November, 2016
Jarod Nygren
City of Kalispell Planning & Building Department
Senior Planner
201 1st Street Avenue East, Kalispell, MT 59901
Phone: (406) 758-7940 Fax: (406) 758-7739
inygren@Kali.s-pell.com
Re: Lofts at Ashley: 55 Unit Version
Jarod,
Barb Gallagher forwarded the most recent plans for the 55 unit "Lofts at Ashley"
apartment complex at the corner of Airport Road and Teal Drive. My wife and I live at
2236 Canvasback Court in the Ashley Park subdivision. We don't share a property
border with the west border of the project but live within line of sight of the proposed
apartment complex. Currently, I am living in the Czech Republic until February 1", 2017,
and will have to give my input via email.
Although Dr. Weber has responded to public sentiment by modifying his original
plans, I believe that the present plans would continue to detrimentally impact the
neighborhood integrity of the Ashley Park Subdivision.
At the present, the entire Ashley Park subdivision consisted of single and duplex
family dwellings. The "Lofts at Ashley" plans introduces a drastically increased density
of people and vehicles in a 3.8 acre area. There must be architectural and landscaping
plans which create a visuallphysical buffer and transition between the established
neighborhood and the new apartment complex. As per Ashley Park citizens
recommendations presented November. 9, 2016, the "Lofts at Ashley" plans must include
an 8 foot high, maintainable berm (landscaped with appropriate trees) on the entire
western side of the property. This will provide an adequate buffer and "push back"
between the existing neighborhood residences and the new apartment buildings as well as
car parking lots. The present plans do not provide a buffer for residents on the south-
west portion of the apartment complex property. Townhouse unit plans to the south
provide a mere 25' distance between car parking and Ashley Park residence property.
There is no provision for a visualIphysical buffer between existing houses/yards and the
town houses and car parking on the south end of the western border of the apartment
property.
My wife and I strongly protest the current "Lofts at Ashley" 55 unit plan and
request that the it be updated to include an 8 foot high, maintainable berm (landscaped
with appropriate trees) on the entire western side of the property.
David and Sharyn Curtis
2236 Canvasback Ct.
Kalispell, MT 59901
Cc Barb Gallagher
KAUSPELL PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Neighborhood Recommendations -Ashley Park Subdivision
RE: "Lofts At Ashley' Development Flan
November 9, 2016
Observations
The residents of the Ashley Park Subdivision recognize that the City of Kalispell
is one of the most rapidly -rowing 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
Recomrnenclations
Incorporation and zoning the 3.79 acre property RA- I : low density,
multi Family units, maxirnurn 55 units.
Create a plan for a two story, 55 unit apartment complex
8 foot high, maintainable berm (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 lightin-
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.
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 fordecades.
,4shkv 1'cxt-k Subclirisiott Inc°cotntl2c��zcicztifms: I'tlgc 1
C
PRINTED NAME SIGNATURE
A
3 AC AA
I
6
7
A —d
—/AC/
8
fv gee
tq c
9
12
13
14
ZU-Ajqoj&),.:F
15
,I
El 0
16
917
19
20
21
22
-ye
23--
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
co cM VVI C' E:—
ADDRESS
v -�n'5 be-1c.
m
PHONE
LM - 0-7
5167
2 L
ill -
Michelle Anderson
From: Jarod Nygren
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 9:08 AM
To: Michelle Anderson
Subject: FW :
From: Connie Gomez [mailto:pgtsoluskalispelll algmail.coml
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 neighborhooduitegrity preserved!!
Thank you for your consideration!
Sincerely,
Dennis & Constance Gomez
2116 Merganser Drive
Kalispell
Pets Plus Pet & Home Sitting
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:jimreid0centuD&el.net1
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 4`" 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:lanceelkrobsonC&yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 2:27 Pik
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 I 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(mailto:comicvisions0gmail.coml
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 3:15 PM
To: Jarod Nygren
Cc: jimreidC-acenturytel.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 ti'eedom 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
Oil 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 I 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@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 [mailto:ibt76 outlook.com1
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: ctmannina@charter.net [mailto:ctmanningocharter.netl
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 plamied 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
peacelid 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 fbr 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@gmaii.com]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 5:22 PM
To: Jarod Nygren
Subject: Comments/concerns re: Lofts at Ashley
jmj
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 properly.
Our opinion regarding this venture is as follows:
t) Our primary prejE rence is that the property- be developed into a recreational area. As large as our
development is, Begg Part: (baseball fields and adjoining playground and basketball court) answers
only partially for the needs of so man-%T 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
Dousing, 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 parr is out of the question, Nve 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 yotir time and attention.
You is respectfully,
Brticr & Kayla render
22t2 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
�•\'l.iI \ 6:1 I li ��a.Sll`a€i!i' (�:I1:IX`, `lI: 0. _3Cl A1", 1 -j:, ) 1 F Ili�I1�
Michelle Anderson
From: BARBARA SLAGHT 0b65slaght@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
I-Ii Jarod! Please forward this email or bring it to work session as I any 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 appartinents
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
font 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.
]"hank you for you kind consideration.
S incercly,
Jeremy & Laura Hawkins
2220 Pintail Court
�Wni prom lily Veri/on, Oataxy 9,nlartj)hon
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
406-871-3030
Michelle Anderson
From: Lynne Lippy [al Iredly nne39@gmaii.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@builittmail.com
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 6:13 PM
To: Jarod Nygren
Subject: Lofts at Ashley Objection
Jack 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
1
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 ParsonsjmaiIto. urgent. parsons(nbgmaiLcomi
Sent: M U—Jay, October 10, 2016 2:i6 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 he gL)Lnwved!
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 sclling 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
P 0 BOX 25 10
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.coml
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 timbochmanOgmail,coml
Sent: Monday, OLiober 10, 2016 i1:031 A� i
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
"him 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[maillto:cmwbellavita@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 1 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. Please have consideration for us as home owners.
Mrs. Marie G. Williams
2100 Eider Dr.
Kalispell, Mt. 59901
This entail leas been checl(ed for viruses by ,avast antivirus software.
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.valentinetcDmannmortgage.com]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 12:12 PM
To: Jarod 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
A& Mann Mortgage
Apply online at:
https://keithvalentine.mannmortgaee.com/
Michelle Anderson
From: Jarod Nygren
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 10:16 AM
To: Michelle Anderson
Subject: FW: Ashley Neighborhood Concern
From: deputygriz [mailto:deputygHzCalyahoo.com1
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 R. 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
beco file.
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 coiLsideration.
Sincerely,
Josh 13uls & 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 [mailto:thebiss5ftyahoo.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 1313
From: Greg Griffin [mailto:ggrriffin,mbi ftmail.coml
Sent: Monday, vctober 10, 2-016 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. Sorne 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 1 /4 of a mile away is 25mph. If the road were to continue at a residential speed,
this properly in question becomes more desirable for R-4. The speed limit will change the perceived
environment 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 toot -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 I 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.
406-260-5 l 90
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.daub0hotmail.coml
Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2916 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 P8
From: Rory Brown [mailto:gozargozadan gmaii.coma
Sent: Sunday; October 09, 2016 8:26 PM
To: Jarod Nygren
Subject: Ashley Creek Apartment Complex
Hello,
This weekend I was made aware of plan to develop an apartment complex in the Ashley Creek subdivision.
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 impact 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.
PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE
REPORT TO: Doug Russell, City Manager
FROM: PJ Sorensen, Planner
Planning Department
201 1" Avenue East
Kalispell, MT 59901
Phone: (406) 758-7940
Fax: (406) 758-7739
www.kalisnell.com/planning
SUBJECT: PUD Amendment Request — Silverbrook
MEETING DATE: January 9, 2017 (Work Session)
BACKGROUND: Under the Planned Unit Development ("PUD") provisions in the zoning
ordinance, a developer can submit a request to amend a PUD. The request is submitted to the Site
Development Review Committee. Site Review then determines if the amendment is minor or major.
If it is minor, the amendment can be approved administratively. If it is major, it is forwarded to the
City Council for review.
Generally, the distinction between a minor and a major amendment is based on whether and to what
extent the proposal changes the intent and purpose of the original PUD, which went through a public
hearing process and was approved by the Council. A minor amendment provides a method to make
small adjustments that may become necessary as the project goes through a more detailed design
process after the PUD is approved, while still maintaining the original intent and purpose of the PUD.
A major amendment, while perhaps entirely justifiable given changed circumstances or business
climates, is a request that changes the intent and purpose as originally approved by the Council.
When Site Review deems an amendment request to be major, the determination is simply that the
nature of the request requires Council review; it is not a determination as to the merits of the request.
In this case, the developer at Silverbrook has requested an amendment to the commercial area of the
PUD. The original PUD intended to create a residential development with a neighborhood scale
commercial area in the northeast corner of the development near the intersection of Church Drive and
Highway 93. According to the application statement from the original developer, the businesses are
intended to include those that "serve primarily the residents of this development. Those types of
business that will be encouraged include small boutique businesses, coffee shops, beauty shop/day
spas, video rental stores, convenience stores, specialty retail, banking and grocery stores."
The PUD placed caps on both the total amount of commercial square footage (120,000 square feet)
and the size of individual buildings (25,000 square feet and single story, 25 ft maximum height
construction) in an effort to ensure that any commercial component would maintain the neighborhood
scale envisioned when the PUD was approved. The 25,000 square foot limit was added later to
address the fact that the owner envisioned a neighborhood grocery store and a typical grocery store
serving this type of an area needed 25,000 square feet to operate.
To date, there has not been any commercial development in the PUD, but there are two potential
businesses which have expressed an interest in being located in Silverbrook: Kalispell Regional
Healthcare and Mann Mortgage. Kalispell Regional is considering an approximately 14,000 square
foot clinic. The clinic would appear to fit within the existing PUD provisions.
Mann Mortgage would locate its headquarters there. The building would be multi -story with up to
40,000 square feet, plus a related 6,000 square foot bank. While the bank would also appear to
qualify, the main issue is related to the office/headquarters building. While Mann Mortgage as an
office would meet part of the PUD intent, there are three aspects of the proposal that run contrary to
the original PUD:
• The Mann Mortgage office building serves as a nationwide headquarters which offers no real
connection to the Silverbrook community.
• The proposed square footage of the building is 40,000 square feet, which exceeds the 25,000
square foot maximum building size.
• Mann Mortgage is asking for a multi -story (2 floors) building and the PUD limits the building
height to a single story with a maximum height of 25 feet.
In order to allow the Mann Mortgage project, the developer has proposed the following amendments:
• The total gross footprint square footage for all buildings on the 13 commercial lots in Phase
2A shall not exceed 120,000 square feet. The footprint of the largest building shall not
exceed 25,000 gfess square feet.
These buildings will be limited to one two-story construction and to a maximum of 24 40 feet
in height.
In Site Review's opinion, the change to "footprint" rather than gross square footage for both the total
amount of commercial development and for individual buildings has the potential to significantly
change the scale of the businesses locating there, including potentially doubling the total amount of
commercial development in terms of floor area.
The resulting encouragement to locate commercial projects in the neighborhood business component
of the PUD that are not locating to primarily serve the neighborhood changes the primary intent and
purpose of the original PUD. The change is extensive enough that the change is major in scope and
needs to be forwarded to the Council for review.
At this point, it makes the most sense to schedule the matter for a discussion at a work session for the
City Council. The Council should then provide direction on how to proceed with their consideration.
ATTACHMENTS: PUD Amendment Request
Report compiled: December 20, 2016
c: Aimee Brunckhorst, Kalispell City Clerk
L�Avffffl1�1
PI anning Surveying Engineering Design IG R 0 U P
December 12, 2016
Kalispell Site Development Review Committee
Attn: P.J. Sorensen, Esq., Chairman
201 1st Ave. East
Kalispell, MT 59901
RE: Application for Minor Amendment to Silverbrook Estates Planned Unit Development.
Dear Mr. Sorenson:
On behalf of Silvermont Properties, WGM Group, Inc. is submitting a request for minor
amendments to the Silverbrook Estates Planned Unit Development (PUD). This request is being
submitted to the Kalispell Site Development Review Committee (Committee) pursuant to §4.02
of the Silverbrook Estates Subdivision PUD Agreement.
Background:
The PUD overlays approximately 325 acres of land zoned R-2, R-4 and B-1 on the southwest
corner of Church Drive and U.S. Highway 93. The PUD was originally approved by the Kalispell
City Council on December 18, 2006.' Pursuant to condition #7 of the approval, a PUD
Agreement was created by the city attorney and signed by the City of Kalispell and the original
developer of Silverbrook Estates on February 15, 2008. The PUD constitutes the zoning for
Silverbrook Estates, and includes by reference both the content of the original PUD application
as well as the conditions of preliminary plat approval of Silverbrook Estates Phase 1.
In 2015, the developers of Silverbrook Estates requested preliminary plat approval of Phase 2.
Two amendments to the PUD Agreement were identified by City of Kalispell planning staff as
part of Phase 2 and were reviewed by the Committee .2 The amendments to the PUD
Agreement were deemed to be minor by the Committee and were approved with recommended
conditions. The conditions were included in Kalispell City Council's approval of Silverbrook
Estates Subdivision Phase 2 as conditions #2, #23, #24, and #25.3
Requested Amendments:
Silverbrook Estates is now owned by Silvermont Properties and the owners are working to bring
the B-1 Neighborhood Commercial portion of the project to life. Residential construction in
Silverbrook Estates is continuing and a neighborhood is beginning to emerge. Unfortunately,
attracting small businesses such as bakeries and barbershops to locate in Silverbrook Estates
"to provide goods and services at a neighborhood level" is difficult without having anchor land
uses to generate daytime traffic.
Two significant anchor land uses have recently selected Silverbrook Estates and are moving
forward with conceptual site and building designs. Mann Mortgage is designing a corporate
headquarters office building and retail store and Kalispell Regional Healthcare is designing a
Kalispell City Ordinance #1597•
z Staff Report KPP-15-04 (pp. 17).
3 Kalispell City Resolution #5749•
KALISPELL OFFICE
151 BUSINESS CENTER LOOP, STE A • KALISPELL, MT 59901
TEL: 406.756.4848 + FAX: 406:756-4849
MISSOULA OFFICE
1111 E. BROADWAY + MISSOULA, MT 59802
TEL: 406.728.4611 • FAX: 406:728-2476
WWW.WGMGROUP.COM
Silverbrook Estates PUD Amendment Request 1`•���1' I
December 12, 2016 1
Page 2 of 2 '3 U P
medical clinic. Both are proposing professional office and retail land uses that provide well -
paying jobs and add to the tax base. These land uses are proposed in an area of Kalispell with
existing services and infrastructure between a developed highway interchange and a developing
residential neighborhood. Furthermore, the proposed land uses are permitted in the underlying
B-1 Neighborhood Business zoning, comply with the "Neighborhood Commercial' land use
designation in the Kalispell Growth Policy4 and comply with the goals and objectives of the
Silverbrook Estates PUD.S
Conceptual site plans and rendering of both land uses are included with this request. However,
the current restrictions on the size of structures in the PUD are a hardship for anchor land uses
that can provide appropriate traffic, bases of employment and the land use transitions specified
in the PUD. Therefore, two minor amendments to the bulk and dimensional requirements of the
Silverbrook Estates PUD are being requested:
Amendment #16
"The total grGs footprint square footage for all buildings on the 13 commercial lots in Phase 2A
shall not exceed 120,000 square feet. The footprint of the largest building shall not exceed
25,000 gr-ess square feet."
Amendment #27
"These buildings will be limited to enetwo-story construction and to a maximum of 24540 feet in
height."
We hope the Committee will approve these amendments as minor modifications to the PUD.
Silvermont Properties and WGM Group appreciate the consideration of the Committee and look
forward to your December 15 meeting.
Sincerely,
WGM Group, Inc.
BJ Grieve, AICP, CFM
Senior Planner
Encl.
4 Kalispell Growth Policy: Chapter 4, Goal io (p.15), Chapter 6, Goals 3 & 6 (p. 24)
5 20o6 Silverbrook Estates PUD application, PUD Narrative (p. 4)
6 Kalispell City Resolution #5749, Condition #2.
7 2006 Silverbrook Estates PUD application, PUD Narrative (p.8)
PLANNING FOIL THE FUTURE
Planning Department
201 1rt Avenue East
Kalispell, MT 59901
Phone: (406) 758-7940
Fax: (406) 758-7739
www.kalispell.com/ planning
APPLICATION FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
PROJECT NAME Silverbrook Estates Subdivision Planned Unit Development (PUD)
1. NAME OF APPLICANT: Silvermont Properties, LLLP
2. MAIL ADDRESS: 315 Parkway Drive
3. CITY/STATE/ZIP: Kalispell, MT 59901 PHONE: (406)885-6081
NAME AND ADDRESS OF OWNER IF DIFFERENT THAN APPLICANT:
4. NAME: Same as Applicant above.
5. MAIL ADDRESS:
I.
CITY/STATE/ZIP: PHONE:
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE: WGM Group, Inc.
MAIL ADDRESS: 151 Business Center Loop, Suite A
CITY/STATE/ZIP: Kalispell, MT 59901
PHONE: (406)756-4848
If there are others who should be notified during the review process, please list those.
No notification required per Section 27.19.020(9)(a) of City of Kalispell Zoning Ordinance.
Check One:
Initial PUD proposal
X Amendment to an existing PUD (Requested amendment only to B-1 portion of PUD.)
A. Property Address: B-1 portion of PUD is at 240 Church Drive, Kalispell, MT 59901
B. Total Area of Property: B-1 portion of PUD is approximately 20.5 acres.
C. Legal description including section, township 8v range: B-1 portion of PUD is on
Tract 1 in NE4 of NW4 & N2 of NE4, Section 13, Township 29N, Range 22W.
D. The present zoning of the above property is: R-2, R-4 & B-1 PUD (Requested amd.
only to B-1 portion of PUD).
1
E. Please provide the following information in a narrative format with supporting
drawings or other format as needed:
Please see attached letter and exhibits regarding minor modification to existing PUD.
a. An overall description of the goals and objectives for the development of
the project.
b. In cases where the development will be executed in increments, a
schedule showing the time within phase will be completed.
C. The extent to which the plan departs from zoning and subdivision
regulations including but not limited to density, setbacks and use, and
the reasons why such departures are or are not deemed to be in the
public interest;
d. The nature and extent of the common open space in the project and the
provisions for maintenance and conservation of the common open space;
and the adequacy of the amount and function of the open space in terms
of the land use, densities and dwelling types proposed in the plan;
e. The manner in which services will be provided such as water, sewer,
storm water management, schools, roads, traffic management,
pedestrian access, recreational facilities and other applicable services
and utilities.
f. The relationship, beneficial or adverse, of the planned development
project upon the neighborhood in which it is proposed to be established
g. How the plan provides reasonable consideration to the character of the
neighborhood and the peculiar suitability of the property for the
proposed use.
h. Where there are more intensive uses or incompatible uses planned
within the project or on the project boundaries, how with the impacts of
those uses be mitigated.
How the development plan will further the goals, policies and objectives
of the Kalispell Growth Policy.
j. Include site plans, drawings and schematics with supporting narratives
where needed that includes the following information:
(1) . Total acreage and present zoning classifications;
(2). Zoning classification of all adjoining properties;
(3). Density in dwelling units per gross acre;
(4). Location, size height and number of stories for buildings
and uses proposed for buildings;
(5). Layout and dimensions of streets, parking areas,
pedestrian walkways and surfacing;
2
(6). Vehicle, emergency and pedestrian access, traffic
circulation and control;
(7). Location, size, height, color and materials of signs;
(8). Location and height of fencing and/or screening;
(9). Location and type of landscaping;
(10). Location and type of open space and common areas;
(11). Proposed maintenance of common areas and open space;
(12). Property boundary locations and setback lines
(13). Special design standards, materials and / or colors;
(14). Proposed schedule of completions and phasing of the
development, if applicable;
(15). Covenants, conditions and restrictions;
(16). Any other information that may be deemed relevant and
appropriate to allow for adequate review.
If the PUD involves the division of land for the purpose of conveyance, a preliminary
plat shall be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the subdivision
regulations.
Please note that the approved final plan, together with the conditions and restrictions
imposed, shall constitute the zoning for the district. No building permit shall be
issued for any structure within the district unless such structure conforms to the
provisions of the approved plan.
The signing of this application signifies that the aforementioned information is true
and correct and grants approval for Kalispell Planning staff to be present on the
property for routine monitoring and inspection during review process.
(Applicant Signature)
(Date)
3
APPLICATION PROCESS
APPLICABLE TO ALL ZONING APPLICATIONS:
A. Pre -Application Meeting:
A discussion with the planning director or designated member of staff must
precede filing of this application. Among topics to be discussed are: Master
Plan or Growth Policy compatibility with the application, compatibility of
proposed zone change with surrounding zoning classifications, and the
application procedure.
B. Completed application form.
C. Application fee per schedule, made payable to the Kalispell Planning
Department.
PUD/CONCEPT PUD Zoning Review Fee
Residential (no subdivision) $1,000 + $125/unit
Commercial (no subdivision) $1,200 + $100/acre
Residential (with subdivision) $1,000 + $100/acre
Commercial (with subdivision) $1,000 + $100/acre
D. A bona fide legal description of the subject property and a map showing the
location and boundaries of the property.
Please consult the with staff of the Kalispell Planning Office for submittal dates and
dates for the planning board meeting at which it will be heard in order that
requirements of state statutes and the zoning regulations may be fulfilled. The
application must be accepted as complete forty-five (45) days prior to the scheduled
planning board meeting.
L,
12/12/2016 02:32PM 4809408228 VHIERATH PAGE 01/01
(6). Vehicle, emergency and pedestrian access, traffic
circulation and control;
(7). Location, size, height, color and materials of signs;
(8). Location and height of fencing and/or screening;
(9). Location and type of landscaping;
(10). Location and type of open space and common areas;
(11). Proposed maintenance of common areas and open space;
(12). Property boundary locations and setback lines
(13)_ Special design standards, materials and, / or colors;
(1.4). Proposed schedule of completions and phasing of the
development, if applicable;
(1.5). Cavenants, conditions and restrictions;
(16). Any other information that may be deemed relevant and
appropriate to allow for adequate review.
If the PUD involves the division of land for the purpose of conveyance, a preliminary
plat shah be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the subdivision
regulations.
Please note that the approved final plan, together with the conditions and restrictions
imposed, shall constitute the zoning for the district. No building permit shall be
issued, for any structure within the district unless such structure conforms to the
provisions of the approved plan.
The signing of this applications sig:nifies that the aforementioned information is true
and correct and grants approval for Kalispell Planning staff to be prescnt on the
property for routine monitoring and itispection during review process.
<Ap p lic angA6iature)
(Date)
3
or �, V�
����\�,
Ii 1
ry \ 1 I
■ ---- N ---- M
Hl�:ION E6 AVMHOIH 'S'n
R�
m
u
FF
�`•,,6 VNVINOIN "ll3dSIlVH
NOID313S 31lS )I00d9U3ATS
39d91�101N NNVA
- HOGHWAY.93 BOUTH
•�examso:x
o�mmY
Sw�a�
' raY6.a
3
Wo
W
0
--N VNVINOW 'll3dSIlVN o
NOI1D3135 31lS NOON8iBATS
o l 3E)VE)i OA NNdW
� �! i � • i�� � Nab LLi
f o
or,
g
LU
I:D
d
i W
I
L)
f- a �
c.
LL
s tV
W
0
Z
1 �
4
i
i
f
�t I
� J
l 1y ✓ v / /
/ R f /
;j
a O o
�-- ry "'
LLJ
0W
zn
X W
Wv,dooll
i
i
x
x
x
0