3. Land Use QuestionsCity of Kalispell
Planning Department
17 - 2' Street East, Suite 21.1, Kalispell, Montana 59901
Telephone: (406) 751-1850
Fax: (406) 751-1858
Website: kalispellplanning.com
REPORT TO: Kalispell Mayor and City Council
FROM: Sean Conrad, Senior Planner
James H . Patrick, City Manager
SUBJECT: Land Use Questions
MEETING DATE: July 30, 2007
BACKGROUND: At the council's June 25th work session on the Starling Development the
council posed a series of questions to staff regarding certain conditions or aspects of the
development. Below are the questions posed to staff with the answer beneath each question in
italics:
1. were public process laws followed for the Starling project?
Yes. In accordance with Montana Code Annotated Section 76-2-303(2) a notice of the requested
zone change was placed in. the Daily Interlake, a paper of general circulation, on Sunday, May 6th
for the May 22nd public hearing. All property owners within 150 feet of Section 35 were notified
by certified mail o, f` the May 22nd public hearing to consider the requested Starting project in
accordance with section 2.06.B.2 of the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations and section 27.30.030
of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. In addition, although not required, the property owners within
150 feet of the project site were notified of the council's decision to hold a public hearing
regarding the growth policy amendment at the duly 161h meeting.
2. Can lot sizes on the proposed preliminary plat be revised to address concerns of
neighbors immediately north of the project site?
Yes. Lot saes can be revised for the preliminary plat for phase I however, depending on the
changes, it may require revisions to the proposed road alignments and open space areas along
West Reserve Drive and Stillwater Road.
3. if the project is approved will the city receive both parkland dedication and have the
parks improved with amenities?
Yes. Discussion of the parkland proposed and the need for the park areas to be improved can be
found on page 20 of the Starling report. Recommended conditions 13 and 14 address the overall
amount of parkland needed and requires the subsequent development of the parkland.
Furthermore, recommended condition 2.N requires the parklands to substantially comply with the
conceptual plans for park improvements included with the application materials.
4 . Request for a letter from the West valley Land Use Advisory Committee.
A letter was sent to Mr. Gary Krueger, chairman of the West Valley Land Use Advisory
Committee, on April 18, 2007 for comments on the proposed project. The planning office to date
has not received any comments.
5. Deviation number 4 of the PUD requests that access to certain lots within the Starling
PUD site be provided via a public alley. This deviates from the Kalispell Subdivision
Regulations, Section 3.08.A and Kalispell zoning Regulations, Section 27.22.080.
These sections of the code require lots to be provided access via a public or private
street. There was a request that a letter be provided from the Kalispell Fire Department
and Public Works Department stating that this deviation will not affect the public's
health or safety.
During the review of the project the various city departments including the planning department,
public works department and fire department staff discussed the proposed project at the city's
weekly site review committee meeting. Based on discussion and recommendations from these
meetings the public works department and fire department did not have an issue with the
requested road deviation.
6. Deviation number 8 of the PUD to allow permitted uses not defined in Kalispell Zoning
Regulations, Section 27.06.020 which lists the permitted uses within the R-3 zoning
district. The developer is proposing a separate list of permitted uses as described in the
Starling PUD Anticipated Land Uses and Development Standards. There was a request
that a list of lots which deviate from the R-3 zoning be provided and an explanation as
to the public benefit the requested deviation provides.
The proposed PUD would allow for a density bonus, varying lot sizes, and housing types which
deviate from the R-3 zoning district. As part of the PUD request the developer has included
increased open space and improved parkland on the project site as a trade off for the deviations
in the R-3 zoning district. Regarding phase 1, pages 27 and 28 provfde a brief overview of the
subdivision including those lots intended for multi family buildings and possibly commercial
uses. The benefit of such a deviation from the traditional R-3 zoning is that a variety of housing
types with compatible neighborhood commercial development would be permitted within the
overall project allowing residents of various income levels to enjoy the location and amenities
within the Starling project. The council can also expect an increased amount of open space and
improved parks above the minimum standards forparkland found in the Kalispell Subdivision
Regulations.
7. Deviation number 9 of the PUD to allow the property development standards to vary
from those prodded in the zoning code. Kalispell zoning Regulations, Section
27.06.040, provides the details of the setbacks, height restrictions and lot coverage for
the R-3 zoning district. The developer is requesting to deviate from the standards set
forth in section 27.06.040 of the Kalispell zoning ordinance and has provided the
Starling Setback Table in the PUD application which details the setbacks for all of the
products and categories allowed in the Starling PUD. There was a request that a list of
lots which deviate from the R--3 zoning setbacks be provided and an explanation as to
the public benefit the requested deviation provides.
If the council approves the Starling project all lots within the project would be subject to the
property development standards requested in the PUD, shown on the PUD Setback Table in the
PUD application as amended by recommended condition number 8. The benefit of such a
deviation from the traditional R-3 zoning setbacks is that the requested setback table allows
living spaces and porches to come closer to the street creating a neighborhood which resembles
parts of the older east and west sides of Kalispell. The setback table also provides for standards
addressing the multi -family, cluster development knits and non-residential knits which are not
addressed in the traditional R-3 zoning district development standards.
8. concerns with recommended condition number 51 with regards to off-street parking.
Recommended condition. 51 requires a parking tot to serve lots 2 18-236 for their potential visitor
parking needs. The parking lot would be constructed on a portion of lot 233 and its purpose is to
provide a place for parking off of the alley serving those lots.
9. Who will do the on -going maintenance of the alleys within the subdivision?
Recommended condition number 34 requires the alleys be publicly dedicated but maintained by
the homeowners association.
10. whether the open space and parkland together meet the required parkland dedication
in phase I.
The amount of parkland proposed in phase 1 is short of the required parkland requirements
recommended as part of the approval for the Starling project. Parkland in phase 1 is discussed
on pages 36 and 37 of the Starling report. Recommended condition number 13 of the PUD and
condition number 40 of the preliminary plat of phase I require that any shortfall of parkland in
phase 1 or subsequent phases would be met by bonding in anticipation of receipt of parkland in
future phases. These conditions were recommended by the planning board based on a
recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Department.
Respectfully su ted,
Sean Conrad James H. Patrick
Senior Planner City Manager
Report compiled: July 23, 2007
c: Theresa White, Kalispell city clerk