Loading...
06-13-06KALISPELL CITY PLANNING BOARD & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING JUNE 13, 2006 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL The regular meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and CALL Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Board members present were: Timothy Norton, Bob . Albert, Rick Hull, John Hinchey, and Robyn Balcom. Kari Gabriel and Bryan Schutt had excused absences. Sean Conrad, P.J. Sorensen and Tom Jentz represented the Kalispell Planning Department. There were approximately 30 people in the audience. Vice President Norton welcomed the new member of the Kalispell City Planning Board, Robyn Balcom. ELECTION OF OFFICERS - Hinchey moved and Hull seconded to elect Timothy Norton PRESIDENT as President of the Kalispell City Planning Board. ROLL CALL The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. ELECTION OF OFFICERS - Hinchey moved and Albert seconded to elect Rick Hull as VICE PRESIDENT Vice President of the Kalispell City Planning Board. ROLL CALL The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. . APPROVAL OF MINUTES Norton moved and Balcom seconded to approve the minutes of the May 9, 2006 regular planning board meeting. The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. HEAR THE PUBLIC No one wished to speak.. HIGHWAY 93 NORTH A request by the city of Kalispell to amend the Kalispell GROWTH POLICY Growth Policy 2020 by expanding the boundaries of the AMENDMENT Growth Policy northward using the Stillwater River as the western boundary, Church and Birch Drives as the northern boundary and generally following U.S. Highway 2, south to Rose Crossing. The Growth Policy amendment is intended to give broad policy direction to growth in this area should property owners wish to annex to the city. The policy anticipates the extension of urban services including sewer and water into this area over time and is designed to give guidance to this. associated growth. STAFF REPORT KGPA-06- Tom Jentz, representing the Kalispell Planning Department 02 presented Staff Report KGPA-06-02 for the Board. Jentz described the Highway 93 North Growth Policy Amendment Map for the Board and members of the audience. Jentz reviewed the process of review and the meetings that Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of June 13, 2006 Page 1 of 21 were held regarding the growth policy amendment. Staff is recommending that the Kalispell City Planning Board should take public comment at the public hearing. Based on that comment and additional board discussion, the board should make changes as they feel appropriate. Staff recommends at that point the planning board should, by resolution resolve to recommend the Highway 93 North Growth Policy Amendments to the City Council for final action and adoption. QUESTIONS BY THE I None. BOARD PUBLIC HEARING Rolland Andrews, has owned his property for 28 years, and noted that the location of the government offices was incorrect on the map. Andrews said he likes the idea of getting ahead and planning but he questions the 150 foot buffer and asked where that came from. Norton said the 150 foot buffer was for aesthetic purposes and is a number that they proposed during their discussions with the County board. Andrews said near the neighborhood commercial is the Decorator Warehouse who just got approval from the County Board of Adjustment to expand their business and he noted they built right on the highway R/W. Jentz said the proposed buffer has no impact on existing development just new development that would be annexing into the City. Jentz added the buffer would be more problematic when the property is a small 1 acre piece of land on the highway. If it is 400 acres on the highway it is a significantly different issue. The goal was to create a highway that showed well for generations to come and yet at the same time allow for development off of the highway. . Andrews said 150 feet is a lot of property, 93,000 square feet or 2.9 acres. Andrews said that if you are talking about an access road or frontage road that wouldn't take 150 feet and added that aesthetics can be achieved with far less than 150 feet. Norton asked if they were considering the buffer area as contributing to the subdivision as park. Jentz said no, it is intended to be where a frontage road would be located, for berming and landscaping and a pedestrian trail. Jentz added that the buffer was an issue with the planning board because this is a significant highway for the valley. Mayre Flowers, Citizens for a Better Flathead walked through the policies and goals and her comments were as follows: Goal # 1 Gateway Entrance standards. They support the development of the Gateway Entrance standards and feel that is very important not only aesthetically but to the economic future of the Kalispell area. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of June 13, 2006 Page 2 of 21 Policies 3.b The policy states that access should be coordinated to allow only collector and arterial streets to intersect and it says that the judicious use of right-of-way approaches, frontage roads, and good internal street development should be the rule. She has a concern about the excessive use of frontage roads. She realizes that they do play a role but suggested using wording that sees them as a lower priority option and as much as possible encourage traffic to be funneled with interior roads. i.iv. Four sided architecture is referenced and should be the norm for development adjacent to the impacted area. She thinks it would also be appropriate under g. 8v h. 3. j. to add "applications for development abutting or within the gateway entrance corridor shall be submitted as a PUD with a sunset clause to discourage speculative and leap frog development." She also suggested that this could be a stand alone policy. Add a Policy #7 " Phasing will be established to provide for growth from the city center outward to prevent premature leap frog development and to ensure that neighborhood residential development isn't placed to justify development of neighborhood commercial areas." Goal 2. Covers the KN-1 area on the map, and in the Kalispell Growth Policy under the land use and business chapter on page 14, issue #7 notes that there has been a question about the need and amount of commercial and light industrial property that is needed for future growth but no quantifiable information is available to assess the market absorption and vacancy rates. Then Page 19, 5. says "when large scale development may have significant impacts on the community, studies should be provided to assist in assessing impacts including analysis related to traffic, infrastructure and the cost of providing services." To be in accordance with those policies within the Growth Policy Flowers recommended adding a section that would establish Economic and Community Impact Review and she provided the model for that language. Goal 2. 3. Flowers suggested that the percentages should be looked at. 25% general commercial equates to 150 acres of the 600 acre site and she noted that the downtown Kalispell area is about 60 acres and the Kalispell Mall sits on about 13 — 20 acres. 150 acres of just commercial with another 25% of office and high density residential creates a significantly large area that needs an impact study. She also suggested in the future tying in the percentages to a study that looks at what the general need is. Ames, Iowa has a good model to look at in .analyzing the percent of commercial that is needed in an area to serve an existing population. Recognizing that Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of June 13, 2006 Page 3 of 21 Kalispell is a commercial hub for our County it takes those figures into account. Flowers added that there needs to be some real basis for the percentages that are being recommended and she would not support the percentages as presented. Flowers suggested that the board create some standards for a Town Serving Zone. The board has identified that the core for this area should serve that area and yet there are not any standards for that zone. With the scale of commercial that may be proposed in this area she feels they need to look at the policies within the Growth Policy that requires the City to establish standards and to protect the integrity of the existing downtown business core. Flowers encouraged the board to look at the entire amendment area as a potential area for a Transfer Development Rights Overlay Zone and consider an inter -local agreement with the County. She said people who live in the City are actually doing a favor for the rest of the population by living in a more compact area. They chose that for a variety of reasons but they can also benefit from the open space and agricultural lands that can be preserved by transferring density rights into an area that can protect water quality, be on city services and various benefits to City residents that could be gained through a Transfer Development Rights program in conjunction with the County. Flowers said she has questions with the map regarding the neighborhood commercial at the intersection of Rose Crossing and Whitefish Stage Road. It seems redundant with the policies for the KN-1 Center. She also questioned the spacing of the commercial development at Reserve and suggested neighborhood commercial at Tronstad might adequately serve that need. Flowers suggested neighborhood commercial at one of the intersections of Church Drive and U.S. Highway 93 North may be all that is necessary. With a bypass there neighbors from both sides of the highway would have easy access to commercial on one side. In terms of the buffering proposed, Flowers feels it is really important, enhances the value of the businesses, attracts people to businesses that are located in the corridor, enhances the value of the residential development in those corridors, and she strongly supports them. Flowers noted that they have a comprehensive resource book on Transfer Development Rights that they would make available to the board for their discussions. Carol Knotts — 1210 Birch Grove Road asked why Birch Road was chosen instead of Shrade Road since Shrade was an Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of June 13, 2006 Page 4 of 21 existing road. Knotts said that considering the congestion and the safety factor with the traffic that Raceway Park and Majestic Valley produce a service road between Church Drive and Shrade Road would help to funnel the traffic to other alternatives exits instead of just coming out on 93. From Church Drive over to Whitefish Stage there would have to be property bought and an entire road would have to be put through there. Jentz noted this was just a boundary that was chosen, it is not intended that a major road system go through there. This boundary coincides with the one selected for the Transportation Plan area. It also buts up against the airport which is an area where growth will not occur. Norton read a letter from Sharon DeMeester that was sent to the board for the record. (Copy attached) Norton said that the board is seeing the City growing in this area and they want to have some control over how it grows. No one else wished to speak and the public hearing was closed. BOARD DISCUSSION Jentz distributed copies of the revised goals & policies for the Highway 93 North Growth Policy Amendment, based on public comments tonight and comments & communications over the past month including the open house and he reviewed them for the board. The revisions are as follows: Goal 1, Policy f. Add: "Where development entrance signage or monument signage is proposed, it should be done so as part of a unified planned unit development concept." Goal 1, Policy g. & h. Add: "iv. Four sided architecture would be the norm adjacent to gateway entrance." Goal 1, Policy h. iii. Amend to read: "A pedestrian trail or sidewalk should be incorporated into the landscaped buffer area at the eutsi e edge of the R /SET " Goal 1, Policy i. ii. Amend to read: "Within this impact area, a combination of berming, landscaping using live materials and trees as well as grass, a pedestrian trail system, limited parking and frontage roads should be incorporated." Goal 1, Policy iii. Amend to read: "Primary buildings should not be located in this impact area." Goal 1, Policy i. Add: "iv. Whenever parking or signage is proposed in the impact area, it shall only be done under a PUD process where the impacts of these actions are anticipated and provided for." Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of June 13, 2006 Page 5 of 21 Hinchey suggested incorporating the amendment to h. iii. into g. iii. which will read as follows: "A pedestrian trail or sidewalk should be incorporated into the landscaped buffer area ." The board and staff agreed. Goal 2, Amend to read: "the development of an integrated residential/ commercial neighborhood (Designated KN-1 on Growth Policy Map) between US 93-Reserve Drive and Whitefish Stage. and ^ future pose Grossing eFAew,n_,,,, Goal 2, Policy 1. Amend to read: "Development will be mixed use in nature creating an overall integrated neighborhood with a town center as opposed to linear strip commercial development fronting the gateway entrances." The final amendment would be to change the definition of Urban Mixed Use Area on the land use map to (offices, residential, kited commercial 8s industrial). Jentz addressed the request by Citizens for a Better Flathead for an economic study for this area stating it would not serve a beneficial use noting that currently approximately 300,000 square feet/year of commercial is being built in the city and we have room for 2-3 years of commercial development before the current sites are full. MOTION Norton moved and Hinchey seconded a motion to adopt Staff Report KGPA-06-02 and Resolution KGPA-06-02, and recommend to the City Council that the Highway 93 North Growth Policy Amendments be adopted. BOARD DISCUSSION Hull asked for clarification regarding the 150 foot buffer, which was provided. Hull said he was brought into the Church Drive boundary kicking and screaming because he wanted the boundary closer to town. MOTION - GROWTH FROM Hull moved and Hinchey seconded a motion to require that THE CITY CENTER the growth be approved in phases from the city center OUTWARDS outwards. BOARD DISCUSSION Balcom questioned how that could be enforced. Hull said that the argument was made with sewer and that is why the boundary was drawn at Church Drive. The idea is if the growth gets beyond more than a mile from the City we should ask for less dense development. Jentz said there are several different models in planning and the model that Hull talked about is a good policy for a very slow growing community. However, it doesn't work so well in a faster growing area because the dense areas overrun the less dense areas and then there are newly platted rural Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of June 13, 2006 Page 6 of 21 subdivisions next to urban subdivisions. Jentz said he would speak against that motion and he provided the board with the statistics of significant growth in Kalispell and the County. Norton said growth is market driven. You cannot enforce, punish or restrict those who want to develop further out from the City because someone is closer who hasn't developed yet. What that does is inflate land values and restricts growth. The neighborhood commercial nodes will increase those property values in that area. He does agree that he would like to see density closer to the City though the board could handle that through the PUD process or subdivision review. ROLL CALL - GROWTH The motion failed on a roll call .vote of 1 in favor and 4 FROM THE CITY CENTER opposed. OUTWARDS BOARD DISCUSSION Hinchey said he likes the concept of the Transfer Development Rights (TDR) Overlay Zone and asked if there was some why to encourage TDR's within the County. Jentz said it is a great concept but he is not sure where it fits in this amendment. Jentz suggested discussing TDR's with the Flathead County Planning Board next time they meet. Hinchey said the neighborhood commercial at Rose Crossing and Whitefish Stage does seem a bit redundant and thought neighborhood commercial should be somewhere else. Jentz said this intersection will probably become a major intersection and businesses would easily locate there and would create a buffer from the traffic, noise, etc. Jentz added the KN-1 portion of the map will not be entirely commercial but if it was he would agree that the neighborhood. ROLL CALL - ORIGINAL The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. MOTION BOARD DISCUSSION Norton thanked Jentz for all his work on the amendment and noted that there were several hours put into the amendment by staff and the board holding several work sessions and an open house. RIEBE/WEBSTER INITIAL A request by Allen and Virginia Riebe, William and, Cindy ZONING UPON Riebe and Polly Webster for annexation, initial zoning and ANNEXATION AND subdivision of approximately 12.8 acres located at 386 and DIAMOND RIDGE ESTATES 394 Three Mile Drive, Kalispell. The properties are currently PRELIMINARY PLAT zoned County R-1 (one acre minimum lot size). The owners have petitioned to annex into the City of Kalispell and have requested the City R-2 (9,600 square foot minimum lot size) as well as proposing a 23 lot residential subdivision. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of June 13, 2006 Page 7 of 21 STAFF REPORT KA-06-04 Sean Conrad, representing the Kalispell Planning & KPP-06-03 Department presented Staff Report KA-06-04 & KPP-06-03 for the Board. Conrad noted the developers requested paying a cash -in -lieu fee to meet the parkland requirements of 11% based on the fact that the lots will be relatively large, 15,000 - 27,000 square feet, and the developer felt that given the large lot size and proximity to the park that is north in the Empire Estates subdivision that a cash -in -lieu fee would be appropriate. The Parks & Recreation Department upon reviewing the subdivision recommended that the parkland be dedicated on site somewhere in the vicinity of lots 6, 7, & 8. The parkland requirement would be approximately 1.1 acres. This parkland would then be taken over, improved and maintained by a homeowners association. Staff is recommending that the Planning Board adopt Staff Report KA-06-04 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that upon annexation the initial zoning of R-2 Single Family Residential be approved. Staff is also recommending That the Planning Board adopt Staff Report KPP-06-03 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the preliminary plat for Diamond Ridge Estates be approved subject to the 20 conditions listed in the staff report. QUESTIONS BY THE Norton asked about other subdivisions in the area that have BOARD parks and Conrad noted that those were homeowners' parks and not City parks. The nearest City park would be in Empire Estates and is 1.7 acres and being developed with a field and some playground equipment. Hull noted that the area recommended for parkland appears to be a hill. Conrad said it is a slight hill approximately 15% slope and added Parks was looking for a central location. Balcom asked if parks in subdivisions are geared more for the residents in those subdivisions and Conrad said yes. Balcom said that safety and whether the park is within walking distance is important. Hinchey asked if a homeowners association would be created to maintain the roads in this subdivision. Conrad said no the roads will be taken over by the City. The only catalyst for creation of the homeowners association would be a common park. Balcom asked if the homeowners didn't have an interest in maintaining a park could it just become a weed patch. Conrad said yes it could. Albert asked if there is any kind of buffer between lots 9, 10, 11 & 12 by Big Sky Boulevard. Conrad said no just larger lot sizes. In this case you would have single family lots adjacent Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of June 13, 2006 Page 8 of 21 to single family lots, like uses, so there wouldn't be any need for a buffer. APPLICANT/AGENCIES Erica Wirtala, Sands Surveying representing the applicants stated Diamond Ridge Estates was first submitted with 2 cul- de-sacs that didn't quite go all the way through and proposed a cash -in -lieu of parkland payment. Site Review thought that a better design would be to continue that road through and make it more of a transportation route as it lined up better with the Bowser Creek Roads and provided better traffic flow. Wirtala noted these lots are 1/2 acre and would allow for swing sets and sandboxes. When the homeowners association maintains the roads, open space, common areas or parkland they have more glue to hold that association together and it tends to be more proactive. Here when the City will take over the ownership and maintenance of the road system the fate of a homeowners' association park, being one acre in size, could lapse into the predicted weed patch. A cash -in -lieu of parkland does go to the purchase of new parkland or playground equipment for City parks. Wirtala stated that they concur with the staff report with the exception of Condition #5, and they respectfully request that the board either remove or reword the condition so that a cash -in -lieu of parkland would be required instead of an actual parkland dedication. Hull asked how they would be able to put in a 1.1 acre park. Wirtala said they would have to decrease the lots in size, or reconfigure the subdivision by eliminating lots. She added the applicant would prefer to keep the lots larger. Norton noted the developer needs to provide evidence that lots 19 & 20 have been included in the road maintenance agreement for Wyndover Hill Drive and asked if it was paved. Wirtala said it is paved and the developer will petition the Wyndover Hill Subdivision to create an addendum to their property owners association which would then allow those 2 lots to be assessed at the same rate as the Wyndover Hill residents are for road maintenance. Norton asked how lots 19 & 20 would access their mail. Wirtala said that they would work with the Post Office to see if they would require individual mail boxes or if they already have a cluster location if they could add those lots. to the cluster site. PUBLIC HEARING Jim Florman - 145 Brook Drive, lot 15 in Big Sky Homesites right below this property, asked how this subdivision will affect his property and property values. Florman added they would not want to use the lots proposed for parkland because it is a significant slope. He asked if there were any Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of June 13, 2006 Page 9 of 21 studies conducted relating to drainage and water and how it will affect the properties down below. Florman also asked what the City plan is for getting sewer up to Three Mile Drive from a 15% grade. Florman said lots 9 - 12 seem like they will be on a hillside and he doesn't know how they would build on the hill. With the property currently being farmed they really don't have an issue with water, although in 1997 there may have been some water from the huge amount of snow and rain that year. Regarding the buffer you would have to have a 50 foot buffer because of the slope, so it is impossible. Jim Bryer - 111 Brook Drive noted that Florman had covered his questions but added it is a delicate situation tying in dense population or housing with those of them who have been out in the country for a while. Bryer said that this is not representative of the typical housing in the area now other than north of Three Mile Drive. He said that they now enjoy deer, grouse, and even a skunk and a raccoon once in a while in their backyards. Bryer said that when they bought their property the realtor said don't worry Jim you won't have 15 people looking in your back door because it is zoned for one house per acre and that is all you are going to see. Bryer said that is why they bought their house in this location. Bryer asked the board to answer Florman's questions about the affect on their houses and their property values. He asked if the roads will provide drainage or will it be running down the hill into their basements. Davy Hoag - 85 West View Drive in the Two Mile Tract Subdivision said it was stated that over half of the lots in the proposed lots are over 1/2 of an acre and by his count he only sees 6 out of 23. Basically he views this proposal as a blatant attempt to make money at the expense of the existing homeowners in this area. He doesn't believe that the development as proposed is consistent with the existing density out there now. In the absence of some compelling reason for this high density development, other than greed, he would suggest that the board reject this proposal. Erica Wirtala, Sands Surveying explained the preliminary plat process and said that they worked with an engineering firm, Carver Engineering on this project. Montana State law requires that when you create a development all runoff stays on that property and can not impact your neighbor's property. Carver Engineering has devised a series of retention and detention ponds, and she noted their locations on the plat map. Wirtala said that detention ponds are temporary and retention ponds will hold the water until it evaporates or soaks in. The plans are then sent to the Montana Department of Environmental Quality where they will be reviewed. A lot of the runoff will also be caught by the curb, gutter and sidewalks and directed to stormwater drains and fed through the municipal system. The sewer will be Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of June 13, 2006 Page 10 of 21 reviewed by the Public Works Department and if a lift station is required the developer will bear that expense. The subdivision regulations read that a hillside cannot be developed if it has a greater than 30% slope and that slope is not exceeded on this property. They will have to work with the Public Works Department to ensure that the hillside standards are adhered to and that they have a good base for the foundations. She noted in addressing the property value questions there is nothing in Flathead County at the moment that is decreasing in value and because the property is closer to town the property value would go up considerably, especially with the new developments that are bringing quality homes to the area. Regarding the question of similar types of development - they felt that the R-2 zone would be a good buffer in relation to the R-3, R-4 and even R-5 zoning nearby and it will bring some diversity in the housing market. Florman asked if that would mean they would have standing water at the edge of their property. Norton said that in the plan provided, yes that is a possibility but it would depend on the rainfall and the runoff for that year. Anna Bryer, 111 Brook Drive said with the water sitting there who is going to take care of the mosquitoes. Norton said that there is a County -wide Mosquito District, and with the number of retention and detention ponds in the City he is not aware of any major problems with mosquitoes in the City as opposed to other areas of the County. Florman noted he and other properties around him are on septic systems and wells and asked if there have been any impact studies done regarding water quality. Norton said that the developer would be responsible for any impacts to other properties and it would be taken care of. No one else wished to speak and the public hearing was closed. MOTION - INITIAL ZONING Hinchey moved and Hull seconded a motion to adopt Staff Report KA-06-04 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that upon annexation the initial zoning of R-2 Single Family Residential be approved. BOARD DISCUSSION Hull noted this is logical fill in for the area. Norton said this is a great infill project with almost 1/2 acre lots. Wyndover Hill also has larger lots and this would be a natural progression from larger acreage parcels to what has already been approved with Empire Estates and Blue Heron, Bowser Creek, etc. ROLL CALL - INITIAL The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. ZONING Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of June 13, 2006 Page 11 of 21 MOTION — DIAMOND RIDGE Hinchey moved and Balcom seconded a motion to adopt Staff ESTATES PRELIMINARY Report KPP-06-03 as findings of fact and recommend to the PLAT Kalispell City Council that the preliminary plat for Diamond Ridge Estates be approved subject to the 20 conditions listed in the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION Hull said the board has been through a number of meetings where the neighbors complained about subdivisions popping up next to them. There could be as many as 5 homes on an acre and the density here is 2 homes per acre. The board sympathizes with the neighbors but there isn't much that the board can do. The area is developing with City sewer so it is logical that the area will continue to develop. Hull said the park issue would require redesigning of the subdivision. Conrad said that the Parks & Recreation Director brought up the issue of a parkland dedication instead of cash -in -lieu of parkland on the day that they packets were being mailed. Hull said that he is opposed to adding the parkland dedication at this late date. Balcom suggested that they dedicate one of the lower lots where the retention ponds and detention basins are located. Conrad said that the Parks Department does not like to take parkland that also functions as the detention basin unless is a very large park. Albert said that he feels it definitely needs a park but it was late in the game when it was realized that there wasn't one provided. Should we make them put one in? Albert said probably not. Balcom suggested using a portion of lots 11 & 12 seems like a win -win situation to her, if it would be possible. Hinchey said that he agrees with Balcom that a portion of Lots 11 8v 12 could be used for a park. Although he sympathizes with the fact that it was late in the game and Parks & Recreation should have been more on the ball, he feels that a park is necessary and maybe the developer can work with Parks to determine a better location. Norton said that he agrees with Albert and Hull that Parks & Recreation dropped the ball on this one. He would hate to have the developer go back and incur costs by redesigning the subdivision this late in the game. Norton said that he totally disagrees with the recommended location of the park. The more natural area for a park would be along the southern border. MOTION Hull moved and Albert seconded a motion to amend Condition #5 to require cash -in -lieu of parkland instead of a parkland dedication for Diamond Ridge Estates. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of June 13, 2006 Page 12 of 21 BOARD DISCUSSION Norton asked if $25,000 was adequate for cash -in -lieu of parkland, because in his opinion it is not. The cash -in -lieu amount should be based on when the property is developed and not on raw land. However, since he cannot change that he agrees with the motion. Balcom said that they are serving on a "planning" board and looking at a plan. It is not something that is already established and she added, yes the parkland dedication was missed but the staff and the board caught it before the final decision was made. ROLL CALL - AMEND The motion to amend Condition #5 as stated above passed CONDITON #5 on a roll call vote of 3 in favor and 2 opposed. ROLL CALL - ORIGINAL The original motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. MOTION AMENDED PLAT OF A request by Wayne Turner to amend Empire Estates Phase EMPIRE ESTATES PHASE 5 5 and add 7 lots to the approved preliminary plat. Phase 5 includes 12.3 acres with preliminary plat approval for 64 lots. Due to a change in access to Phase 5 and a redesign of the subdivision roads and lots the owner was left with additional land outside of the 64 preliminary approved lots. It is on this additional land the owner is requesting to add 7 lots. STAFF REPORT KPP-06-04 Sean Conrad, representing the Kalispell Planning Department presented Staff Report KPP-06-04 for the Board. Conrad stated when Empire Estates was given preliminary plat approval in 2003 there was a proposal to run Trump Drive (now referred to as Barron Way in Phase 5) on the southern end of the subdivision across the Kalispell Bypass and MDT will not allow that road to go through. The developers have now come in and amended the plat that adds 7 sublots with a cul-de-sac at the junction of Barron Way and the bypass and have eliminated the park at the southern tip of Phase 5. By in large, the addition of 7 lots will not impact the roadway access or water and sewer facilities for this phase of the subdivision. Conrad said with the addition of 7 lots there is a regulation in the Subdivision Regulations that requires .03 of an acre for parkland per dwelling unit when you go to a density higher than 11,880 square feet per dwelling. This proposal far exceeds that. The developers have come in and requested 7 additional lots which requires parkland dedication of about 9100 square feet or cash -in -lieu of parkland. In addition to that, because the previous homeowners' park on the southern end of the preliminarily plat is no longer being proposed, the Site Review Committee discussed making up for at least part of the homeowners' park. This discussion Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of June 13, 2006 Page 13 of 21 included possibly creating a 16,000 square foot homeowners' park along the bypass. However, at the Site Review meeting the Assistant Police Chief thought that an interior park near lot 11 would serve the subdivision better. The owner agreed to that but where the City went a bit further is instead of just requiring a 9100 square foot park, the City asked for a 16,000 square foot park to meet the Subdivision Regulations for the 7 requested lots and secondly to compensate for the homeowners' park open space that was eliminated on the southern tip of this phase. Conrad said the Planning Department is also recommending that a concrete bicycle pathway be constructed somewhere in the vicinity of Lot 7B to connect the future sidewalk along Barron Way to the future bike path along the bypass. Conrad noted that Condition #6 refers to the homeowners' park designation and Condition #7 refers to the bike/pedestrian pathway. Staff is recommending that the Kalispell City Planning Board adopt Staff Report KPP-06-4 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the amended preliminary plat of Empire Estates Phase 5 be approved subject to the 17 conditions listed in the staff report. QUESTIONS BY THE Norton asked for clarification on location of the bike path BOARD and who would be responsible for maintaining both the bike path and the park. Conrad said at the Site Review meeting they proposed the park by the bypass and felt that the City could take over the maintenance of the park since they would be already maintaining the bike path but since it was decided to move the park to the interior of this phase, the park would then be maintained by the homeowners'. APPLICANT/AGENCIES Hubert Turner, 3300 Highway 2 West restated the reasons that they were before the board with a revised preliminary plat of Empire Estates Phase 5. Turner said with the elimination of the connecting road through the bypass they determined they had unused real estate and in an effort to provide affordable housing they needed to increase the lots. They submitted a plat with no parks proposed because they had just gone through the process of turning over the homeowners' association of Phases 1 - 4 and he noted there has been little to no interest in being involved in the homeowners' association for Empire Estates to maintain any of the common areas of phases 1-4. The bike path buffer area that is supposed to be maintained by the homeowners is not being maintained. Turner added in their defense they have only been in control of the homeowners' association for about 10 weeks. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of June 13, 2006 Page 14 of 21 Turner continued that in consultation with staff they realized that parkland was more important than they had originally thought and they agreed there should be a centralized park somewhere in the vicinity of Lot 11. However, he thinks that asking for 16,000 square feet is too much since the Subdivision Regulations would only require approximately 9100 square feet for parkland. Tuner said this would require a major redesign of the middle section of the subdivision. Turner said that he doesn't think that the City or the homeowners are losing a great deal of recreational opportunity due to the fact that the park isn't there anymore. He thinks that they are gaining something because they don't have a .6 acre weed patch cluttering up their subdivision. Three years ago the City deemed the homeowners park as having no recreation opportunities and was not accepted by the City but they were still charged cash -in -lieu of parkland. In fact what ended up happening was they purchased that real estate once to subdivide it and then again from the City. Turner said he has no problem providing a homeowners park but they are proposing a smaller park, the required 9100 square feet with $10,000 dedicated to develop the park so that it would be established and the homeowners would be more willing to take over the maintenance of an established park. He added there was small homeowners' park at the southern end of Phase 4 and soon after taking over the association one of the new board members of the homeowners' association called the planning office and asked if they could sell it because they had no use for it. Turner said another issue is he has no problem with connecting their subdivision with the proposed bypass bike path but suggested that the bike path be constructed between lots 11 8s 12 along the 15' easement for the sewer line. In addition, staff is asking for a concrete bike path, which Turner said that he has never seen and added that concrete breaks and asphalt is more flexible and can stand up to abuse. He also noted it would be safer for the children in the subdivision to construct the bike path between lots 11 & 12. PUBLIC HEARING I No one wished to speak and the public hearing was closed. MOTION Hull moved and Hinchey seconded a motion to adopt Staff Report KPP-06-4 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the amended preliminary plat of Empire Estates Phase 5 be approved subject to the 17 conditions listed in the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION I Hull said that he is in favor of a park but thought it could be smaller - 14,000 square feet. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of June 13, 2006 Page 15 of 21 Hinchey asked staff to review how they arrived at 16,000 square feet for the parkland requirement. Conrad responded. Hinchey said that he is in favor of the 16,000 square foot park because the lots are small. Balcom said that she agreed with the applicant that the location of the bike path along the sewer line makes more sense because it would be safer for the kids. Norton said that he agrees with Balcom. Hinchey asked if the current bike path is concrete and Jentz said that it was asphalt. Jentz added that asphalt has a life span of 10-20 years and concrete has a life span of 50 years. Concrete cracks and stabilizes and with asphalt weeds pop up, it erodes and alligators. Jentz said that the current bike path is invisible because the homeowners butt up against it and have fenced it and if located near the park people will see it and use it. Norton asked if the City has any ability to enforce the maintenance of parks by the homeowners associations. Jentz said that the City has not taken that approach but if weeds are a problem it is the planning department's responsibility to enforce the weed ordinance after July 1st. Balcom said that it would make sense for the homeowners to take care of the parks to protect their property values. She said that she hopes that affordable housing doesn't mean a price so low that people wouldn't care about their property and subdivision. Balcom added she has a City park in her neighborhood and they got involved as a neighborhood and got the Parks Department to work on the park. It works but it takes some initiative on the part of the homeowners. Hinchey agreed. Albert thinks that the requirement should be 9100 square feet and not 16,000 square feet. As far as taking care of the park whoever maintains it should be required to maintain it. Hull said that the he accepts the 16,000 square feet for the park but felt that the bike path location should be changed. Turner said when they developed the bike path on another portion of Empire Estates it was the perfect place to pile dirt that was dug out of a foundation. The material was then retrieved by a 950 front end loader in a fashion that tore up the asphalt and he had to replace it. Turner said that he has never seen a bike path built of concrete here in Flathead Valley. Turner said as far as the easement location for the bike path the public safety issue still stands because when cars are parked along both sides of the street it doesn't matter how fast you are going children can get hurt. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of June 13, 2006 Page 16 of 21 (1 �i MOTION - AMENDMENT TO Hull moved and Norton seconded to amend Condition #7 to CONDITION #7 read that "A bike/pedestrian path easement, 20-feet wide, shall be shown on the final plat." And "The bike/pedestrian path shall be constructed and paved and be a minimum width of 10 feet." BOARD DISCUSSION Norton said that he agrees with Hull on the amendments to the bike path and disagrees with Jentz regarding the location of the bike path. Norton thinks that the recommended location would be dangerous and the placement of the bike path on the sewer easement will make the path safer, more visible and therefore will be used more. Jentz said that when you have a City bike path you have the City putting it in and maintaining it. When you have a homeowners' bike path your are giving it to the homeowners. By requiring concrete instead of asphalt it would lessen the burden on the future homeowners. AMENDED MOTION - Hull suggested amending his motion to read "The CONDITION #7 bike/pedestrian path shall be constructed out of concrete and be a minimum width of 10 feet." ROLL CALL - CONDITION The motion as amended passed on a roll call vote of 4 in #7, AS AMENDED favor and 1 in opposition. BOARD DISCUSSION Hull said that he noticed that the construction has already started and Conrad said that they already had approval of the preliminary plat of Phase 5 and the addition of the lots and sublots will not impact the infrastructure which is being installed. Norton said that if they are concerned that the homeowners' park will be a weed patch, they could require that the park be improved with benches and recreation amenities, etc. Especially in a subdivision where no one wants to be part of a homeowners' association and at least 60% of these lots will be renters and not owner occupied properties. Turner said he disagrees that that 60% of the lots will be renters. Balcom asked for clarification on how far the City could go in this regard. Norton said they can include the improvement of the park with recreational amenities in the conditions. Balcom asked who would enforce the covenants. Norton said that the homeowners association would enforce the covenants to ensure that the properties are kept up. ROLL CALL - ORIGINAL The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. MOTION DOWNTOWN PARKING A request by the City of Kalispell to amend Section TEXT AMENDMENT 27.26.040(11) of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance specifically Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of June 13, 2006 Page 17 of 21 to allow for required parking within the Special Parking Maintenance District No. 2 (Downtown Kalispell) to be met by a cash -in -lieu of parking payment. In addition, it is proposed that Special Parking Maintenance District No. 2 boundary (Appendix B, Figure 2) be expanded to include the Kalispell Center Mall bounded by Center Street, Fifth Avenue West, the BN RR Tracks and North Main Street. STAFF REPORTS KZTA-06- P.J. Sorensen, representing the Kalispell Planning 03 Department presented Staff Reports KZTA-06-03 for the Board. Sorensen stated that this amendment deals with parking regulations in the downtown area. There are general parking ratios that go with individual use through the City such as single family residences have 2 off-street parking spaces, offices have 1 parking space for every 400 square feet of gross floor area, and restaurants are 1 space for every 100 square feet of gross floor area. In the downtown core area uses can come and go with an existing square footage without having to provide additional parking. New developments or additions onto existing buildings have to provide additional parking. He said in practice that is very difficult, if not impossible to come up with because everything in downtown is already developed. Most of the towns in Montana that they looked at have a cash -in -lieu payment if someone. should fall short of parking spaces. The cash -in -lieu payments would go into a fund that would be used to develop common public parking in the downtown area. They also looked at the Growth Policy which specifically recognizes the special parking considerations for downtown and encourages innovative parking management and provision of public lots and structures. After further review and discussions, the city council directed staff to bring forth this amendment, which states that a cash -in -lieu payment may be paid as an alternative to providing required parking spaces on site. The money shall be paid into a fund established by the city council and in an amount to be set by city council by resolution. Sorensen said that the second part of this amendment deals with expanding the downtown parking area to include the Kalispell Center Mall site. With what is there right now once they build the bank off of Highway 93 their parking would be maxed out at the site and they would not be able to expand the mall or put in any other buildings there. Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board adopt the findings in staff report KZTA-06-3 and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that required parking within the Special Parking Maintenance District No. 2 may be met by a cash -in -lieu payment and that the Special Parking Maintenance District No. 2 boundary be expanded to include Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of June 13, 2006 Page 18 of 21 the Kalispell Center Mall property bounded by Center Street, Fifth Avenue West North, the BN railroad tracks, and North Main Street. QUESTIONS FROM THE Hull asked if the Parking Commission was privatized. BOARD Hinchey said that the Parking Commission works autonomously and is entirely supported by permits and fines. Hull asked about the parking lot across the tracks that the City provided for the expansion of the mall. Sorensen said that no City owned parking structures or lots in the nearby area would support additions to the mall. Norton said in other words the mall owns land north of the railroad tracks. Further discussion was held regarding the area across the tracks from the mall. PUBLIC HEARING No one wished to speak and the public hearing was closed. MOTION Hinchey moved and Balcom seconded a motion to adopt Staff Report KZTA-06-03 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that required parking within the Special Parking Maintenance District No. 2 may be met by a cash -in -lieu payment and that the Special Parking Maintenance District No. 2 boundary be expanded to include the Kalispell Center Mall property bounded by Center Street, Fifth Avenue West North, the BN railroad tracks, and North Main Street. BOARD DISCUSSION Hull asked what the parking situation was downtown. Hinchey responded it is bleak. Hinchey said they have had businesses leaving downtown for the express purpose of finding more available parking at a different location. This has caused downtown to be status quo. They feel that removing this parking requirement will allow businesses to expand, however it will create a short-term parking problem that will have to be addressed in a different way. Hull noticed that downtown was turning into office space and those people are having trouble with the 2 hour parking limit. Hinchey said there is no solution and a lot of those businesses are leaving downtown. They are trying to manage the parking for the clients of these businesses and trying to discourage people from parking all day. Hull asked what this money will be used for. Hinchey said it would be put into a fund held by the Parking Commission for future parking requirements. Sorensen said that council would need to set up a plan to determine the amount of cash -in -lieu that would be required and these funds would be used for a parking study to identify locations, to purchase property, and to develop public parking facilities within the Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of June 13, 2006 Page 19 of 21 downtown area. Balcom suggested that if there is a trend that businesses are leaving because of the lack of parking the money could go into efforts to lure businesses back on to Main Street. Hinchey said one reason this came up is First Avenue Casino/Restaurant on lst Avenue West and 2nd Street West wanted to expand and because they were expanding they had to have 2 additional parking spaces. This perpetuated the discussion to encourage expansion in downtown but they are hampered by the current parking requirements. Sorensen said there are at least 4 projects out there that are impacted by the current parking requirements. Norton said he totally understands that there is no parking downtown and that if the City is going to get any type of growth or redevelopment downtown something is going to have to be done. Norton said cash -in -lieu is a logical way to handle the problem. Norton was concerned that Kalispell Center Mall is being considered for inclusion in the parking district. He feels the mall and their parking is a totally different issue than the downtown parking issues. The mall has land north of the railroad tracks and they should do something with the land that they own to provide parking for their future expansion. The mall could be handled as a separate issue. He added that he will vote no if the mall is included. Jentz said he is responsible for suggesting including the mall in the parking district, the mall did not ask to be a part of the district. The concept was to include the mall and now there is a larger group of business owners involved in the solution. Hinchey said that it seems to him that if they have a problem downtown with parking they need all the players they can get on their side and that is why he is in favor of keeping the mall in the district. Albert said that he agrees with Hinchey that they need to keep the mall in the district. ROLL CALL The motion passed on a roll call vote of 4 in favor and 1 opposed. OLD BUSINESS: I CASINOS TEXT AMENDMENT MOTION Norton moved seconded by Albert to postpone the work session on the Casinos Text Amendment until the July 11, 2006 meeting date. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of June 13, 2006 Page 20 of 21 ROLL CALL I The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. NEW BUSINESS: Norton noted that Kari Gabriel was involved in fall from a horse and broke her back. He sent a card around for everyone to sign. ADJOURNMENT I The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:25 p.m. orton President The next regular meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission will be held on Tuesday, July 11, 2006. Work session held after the regular meeting on the following item: 1. Preliminary discussion and review of a proposed development at the corner of Church Drive and Highway 93 North, no application has been submitted yet. Michelle Anderson Recording Secretary �J APPROVED a submitted/corrected: / !/ /06 Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of June 13, 2006 Page 21 of 21