Loading...
11-18-03�J KALISPELL CITY PLANNING BOARD & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 18, 2003 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: Rick Hull, Jim Atkinson, George Taylor and John Hinchey. Sue Ellyn Anderson, Jean Johnson. and Timothy Norton were absent. Tom Jentz represented the Tri-City Planning Office. There were approximately 50 people in the audience. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Atkinson moved and Hinchey seconded to approve the minutes of the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission regular meeting of November 12, 2003. The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. HEAR THE PUBLIC No one wished to speak. GELINAS DEVELOPMENT, A request by Gelinas Development, LLC, to amend the LLC ZONE CHANGE Kalispell City Zoning Map from R-3, Single Family REQUEST Residential to R-4, Two Family Residential on Block 203 of Kalispell Addition 3 in the City of Kalispell. This is a continuation of the October 14, 2003 agenda. GELINAS DEVELOPMENT, A request by Gehnas Development, LLC for preliminary plat LLC PRELIMINARY PLAT approval of Old Courthouse East, a 24 unit townhouse APPROVAL development, on Block 203 of Kalispell Addition in the City of Kalispell. STAFF REPORTS Tom Jentz, with the Tri-City Planning Office, gave a #KZC-03-3A AND KPP-03- presentation of staff report KZC-03-3A, a request by Gelinas 15 Development, LLC, to amend the Kalispell City Zoning Map from R-3, Single Family Residential to R-4, Two Family Residential on Block 203 of Kalispell Addition 3 in the City of Kalispell and staff report KPP-03-15, a request for preliminary plat approval of Old Courthouse East, a 24 unit townhouse development. Jentz handed out seven additional letters received since the last meeting and a list of five phone calls, all but one of which were in opposition. He stated that this is a request for a zone change to R-4 on the Courthouse East property, which is currently zoned R-3. Jentz showed a site map and stated that the area is a city block bounded by 7th Street to the north and 8th Street to the south. He stated that Hedges School abuts the entire property to the south, two offices and a retail flower shop abut the property to the east and northeast, the remainder of Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of November 18, 2003 Page 1 of 14 the site abuts single family housing. The entire neighborhood is zoned R-3. Jentz said that the applicant wants to demolish the building, which is 60,000 square feet and four stories tall, and build duplexes on the 12 lots which will result in 24 dwellings. He stated the building is currently a nonconforming use and whether or not the zoning is approved tonight, the applicant can still use the northern most wing (constructed in 1960) as a one story office building as long as off street parking to city standards is supplied. The applicant would like R-4 zoning (Single Family - Duplex Zone), with a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet and a minimum width of 50 feet. Jentz said that the original city block is platted out in 50 foot lots and the applicant has indicated that he would like to restore the original alley which was abandoned and use that as access to the duplexes. The applicant would like to build two -unit townhouses on the lots. Jentz stated the growth policy looks at the area as residential, with 4-12 units per acre, and the project is already laid out in 12 platted lots which are 50 x 150. He said the R-3 zone is six units per acre and the zoning request is in general compliance. Jentz said that the applicant's purpose is to build a two unit townhouse on every lot. Ho noted that the lots don't comply with the R-3 zone right now; at 7,500 square feet they are larger than the minimum 7,000 square foot size but the R-3 sets the minimum at 60 feet while these lots are only 50 feet wide. He stated the R-4 zone has a 50 foot wide lot width and that it would comply with zoning. He said that the building site is about the same, and the buildable area is the same for single family residence or a duplex. Jentz explained that the alley was previously abandoned, and that the applicant is planning on reestablishing the alley and using that for access if the zone change is approved. The lots are a full 150 feet deep without the alley. There is no requirement to build an alley on already platted ground. Therefore, unless the applicant proceeds with the subdivision (which requires this zone change) and the alley becomes a condition of subdivision approval, the only other way for the city to get an alley would be by condemnation. He is concerned that without an alley, all anyone would see from the street is a two car garage and a front door, with people living in the back. Jentz said that townhouses typically cater to a different family size, and the average vehicle trips generated per townhouse unit is six instead of the 10 for a detached single family residence, so traffic would increase somewhat, but it would not double. He said there are many housing options Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of November 18, 2003 Page 2 of 14 for families to consider in Kalispell not just these townhomes. Jentz stated that this is one of the few areas that has a school and a park right in the neighborhood. PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened to those who wished to speak on the issue. APPLICANT/AGENCIES Kathy Gelinas, developer, stated that they gave a letter to the neighbors about their plan, and feels R-4 zoning would benefit the community and benefit the east side. She said they would put the alley back and rededicate it to the city; there would be no access onto the street, which would reduce traffic congestion and conform to the east side homes that are there, and having an alley will eliminate danger in that cars wouldn't be backing onto the street. She said that the proposed design can't be altered much because of the size of the lot, and anything else would not be economically feasible. She said that restrictions are imposed on the R-4 and they can't use a PUD because the design can't be changed. She said the design looks like high end townhomes and they would create a higher tax base. She stated that people desire housing on a city block and that the project fits the growth policy. Matt Gelinas spoke at length about the asbestos problem. PUBLIC COMMENT Steve Martinez, owns 725 6th Ave East (Gibson Eye Clinic), and lives at the bottom of 4th Ave East, is opposed and has concerns with the possibility of using the old building, but has asbestos concerns if the building comes down. He said he wants the city to monitor the air quality on the Hedges side of the building. Shayne Nelson, 728 5th Ave East, is opposed and is speaking for some neighbors who are out of town. He said they feel the existing townhouses a block and a half away are an eyesore, and he lives on the east side of town because of the school. He feels the neighborhood is a single dwelling atmosphere and that the developer did not do his homework when he purchased the property and needs to live with it. He stated he and his neighbors want single family homes built there. Sylvie Wood, 415 4th Ave East, is opposed and wants the property to stay R-3. She stated she feels it will lower the value of the neighborhood and is concerned about traffic increases, safety issues and the school. Bill Goodman, 1275 Lower Valley Road, opposed, said that the area is a stable neighborhood because it is R-3 and the average stay is 7 years, compared with 2 years for people Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of November 18, 2003 Page 3 of 14 who live in duplexes. He feels it will diminish the property values in the immediate neighborhood to change the zoning. Chuck Cummings, 1002 4th Ave East, opposed, said that the character of the neighborhood will be impacted negatively, and he doesn't buy the statistical traffic averages and feels they will be an impact on the surrounding neighborhood. David Fortenberry, 605 7th Ave East, opposed, said this is contrary to traditional single family dwellings on the east side and that this is a bottom -line driven situation, and that profit is the main force. He said the city doesn't bear the responsibility to an investor's bad decision and the zoning should be consistent. Sarah Berg, 821 6th Ave East, proponent, said that something needs to be done about the building and that we are not changing from single family houses to duplexes. We are changing from a 4-story office complex to duplex houses. She said she doesn't blame the developer for wanting to make a profit, and the project is in line with the growth policy. She stated that the integrity of the neighborhood will not be jeopardized if it is built, and the developers are trying to do what is best. JoAnn Neiman, 735 4th Ave East, opposed, said that she doesn't care that the developer makes money or not, and it is not up to her or the neighborhood that they make a profit. She feels the developer should have figured out it was full of asbestos, and that is not up to neighborhood to make it okay; they had a right and an expectation that an R-3 development would go there. She said it is important that the neighborhood stay the way it is and there is an opportunity to make it a real neighborhood. She feels what's best for the community needs to be taken into consideration. Jean Paschke, 808 Woodland Ave, opposed, said that she teaches at Hedges, and the increase in traffic is her main concern. She stated that the PTO has made a formal request to determine how to make the traffic flow safer. She feels that area is an accident waiting to happen and there will be no benefit if the zoning is changed. Kurt Marcus, 502 Third Ave East, opposed, stated he believes the east side of town is special and hopes that whatever is done on the property would be special. Jim Flores, 435 5th Ave East, opposed, values in the community are important a very strong community. He wants to r and the integrity of the neighborhood. Robin Balcome, 1002 5th Ave Eas stated he feels family , and the east side is etain the atmosphere stated she feels Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of November 18, 2003 Page 4 of 14 f� u C) there are too many mysteries in the project and the developer's hesitancy to do a PUD is a red flag. She said she wants to see what is going to happen with the old building and there are too many different changes with the plans. David Downey, 344 6th Ave East, opposed, said he doesn't disagree with anything said here in opposition and asked if it would set a precedent on other city blocks and lead to the degradation of the east side. Rebecca Gris-Jones, 630 5th Ave East, opposed, said she is disheartened that there may be duplexes and that the neighborhood shouldn't bear the burden of the developer's economic success and feels their property values will decrease. She said she feels it is not in compliance with the growth policy, as it does not keep the historic neighborhood intact. Laurie Cummings, 1002 4th Ave East, opposed, said that she agrees with everyone who spoke, and feels that the neighborhood is a treasure and she wants it to stay that way. Alex Shaeffer, 444 3rd Ave East, opposed, stated that he wants to add integrity to the project, because so far it feels like it is just gimmicks. He said that zoning should not be whimsical, that it requires trust and judgment, and he does not trust many of the things spoken tonight. Judith Pressmar, 844 3rd Ave East, opposed, said that she feels retaining the single family designation is the right thing to do. Mitzi Hensleigh, 440 6th Ave East, opposed, said she feels the integrity of the neighborhood cannot be matched by townhouses. Becky Jaggar, 745 4th Ave East, opposed, stated she feels that this is a huge chunk of the community that won't fit in, and that we don't need more anomalies. She would like to maintain the integrity of the east side. Jennifer Prunty, 223 Segiah Way, developer, proponent, said that people have approached her about townhouses, and that Gelinas is concerned about the neighborhood and the integrity of the community. Kelly Hatten, 620 5th Ave East, opposed, stated that she agrees with everyone else, and questioned that if it stays R-3, will there not be an alley required? Thad Johnson, 622 6th Street East, opposed, stated that he feels there is a lot more traffic and turnover with a duplex, and it is better for the neighborhood to stay single family. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of November 18, 2003 Page 5 of 14 O Ann Ingram, 607 Sylvan Court, opposed, stated that she agreed with everyone else, that the neighborhood is a beautiful place and there is no guarantee if duplexes are built. No one else wished to speak and the public hearing was closed. MOTIONS Atkinson moved and there was no second to adopt staff report KZC-03-3A as findings of fact and, based on these findings, recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the zoning for this property should be amended from R-3, Single Family Residential to R-4, Two Family Residential on Block 206 in the City of Kalispell. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND Hinchey moved and Hull seconded to adopt staff report KZC- 03-3B as findings of fact and, based on these findings, recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the zone change for this property from R-3, Single Family Residential, to R-4, Two Family Residential on Block 206 in the City of Kalispell be denied. BOARD DISCUSSION Atkinson asked if the design as shown on the site map includes an alley, and asked where the garbage would be picked up. Jentz said that it is an alley, and the garbage would be picked up there. Taylor asked Jentz to go through the procedure to get an alley if the zoning stays R-3. Jentz said the city can get a utility easement or the developer can put an alley in at his cost; if he chooses not to, the city must condemn property in order to get it put in. He said that alleys cost a bit, they lose land and must be built to city standards, but they create front yards. A large part of the cost for the developer is the asphalt. Hull asked if changing the zoning to R-4 would be spot zoning, since it would be isolated by itself. Jentz said it would if it did not meet the growth policy, but the land already exists as 12 parcels. He explained they cannot favor one individual above others when zoning. Hull asked Gelinas if they had decided to forego the office space. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of November 18, 2003 Page 6 of 14 �J Gelinas said that it is really up to the EPA and the asbestos removal situation; they want to remove the building, but it may require considerable cost. There was a lengthy discussion about asbestos removal; Gelinas explained where the asbestos was and the methods they would have to use to remove it. He estimated the cost of removing the asbestos could go over $1,000,000. Taylor asked for the City's role in asbestos abatement. Jentz said it was for the state and federal agencies to take care of and that we don't have an inspector. He stated he doesn't know how the building will come down. Taylor asked the applicant to speak further about asbestos abatement. Gelinas said removing the asbestos requires a negative pressure enclosure with the air exchanged every 15 minutes. All workers wear a filter which is changed out every 8 hours with the outside air monitored as well. When the abatement is complete, another company must do a final air test. He said there is no outside air exposure and the building is done in sections. Atkinson asked Jentz if the zoning was changed to R-4 there would be sidewalks all around, but if it remained R-3 would there be sidewalks? Jentz stated with an R-3 there was no subdivision review because lots would be sold individually, but that the city could order sidewalks in. The power could be ordered underground if it was changed to R-4, but not if it was R-3. He said there are overhead power lines in the neighborhood now and that an alley could be dedicated to the city if the developer chose to. R-3 zoning could place garages in front without an alley, since there is no subdivision review. Atkinson also asked what the chances are that a builder would purchase a lot without an alley. Jentz said they would go like hotcakes, and he has no doubt that single family homes would sell. Atkinson stated that he agrees with a lot of the concerns of the neighborhood, except he feels there will be less traffic problems with duplexes than with the old building. He has safety concerns without an alley and is concerned with cars backing into the street, garages in the front and the looks of single family homes. He stated he would rather see it as R-3, but he knows that older folks want townhouses which have less grass to cut and would not cause pressure on Hedges Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of November 18, 2003 Page 7 of 14 School. In the long run, duplexes would be best, because of the alley requirement, and he is going to vote against the motion. Hinchey stated that no developer would buy a lot and not spend the extra money to pave the alley, and that he can't see a developer doing that. He said any developer will want to conform to the neighborhood. He stated the issues are not traffic, etc., but they are risking setting a bad precedent by spot zoning, which is inappropriate for the neighborhood. Hull stated that there is overwhelming public opposition, that the zone change is not beneficial for the community and that he feels it is spot zoning, and that it is incompatible with the neighborhood. Taylor stated he feels they would be "creating an island in the sky" if they were to approve this and it would be spot zoning. He stated that zoning separates incompatible uses, and is the only way to regulate density and character. He feels that the asbestos is a real problem, and asked how do we want Kalispell to develop. He feels the board needs to protect the value of the properties and do what is best for the community. Jentz reviewed a revised set of findings based on planning board concerns and issues raised by the public during the hearing process. These findings were acknowledged by the planning board as the current findings before them and are attached as Amended Staff Report KZC-03-3B. There was further discussion. Atkinson stated that he hopes everyone benefits from this, and he will be voting for the motion. ROLL CALL The motion to deny the zone change from R-3 to R-4 passed unanimously based on staff report KZC-03-3B. MOTION Atkinson moved and Taylor seconded to recommend staff report KPP-03-18 be denied because it does not comply with the underlying zoning. BOARD DISCUSSION There was no discussion. ROLL CALL The motion passed on a unanimous vote. ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP A request by the Roman Catholic Bishop of Helena for a zone OF HELENA ZONE CHANGE change from R-4, Two Family Residential, to R-5, REQUEST Residential/Professional Office, for property located at 29 8th Street East in Kalispell. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of November 18, 2003 Page 8 of 14 CONTINUED TO DECEMBER MEETING (due to lack of a standing quorum) GLACIER VILLAGE GREENS A request by Glacier Village Greens Homeowner's Association PHASE IIIC PRELIMINARY for preliminary plat approval of Glacier Village Greens, Phase PLAT APPROVAL IIIC, a 4 lot residential subdivision on 1.3 acres of land lying east of East Nicklaus Avenue and south of the Ritzman Lane intersection. STAFF REPORT KPP-03-13 Tom Jentz, with the Tri-City Planning Office, gave staff report KPP-03-13, a request for preliminary plat approval of Glacier Village Greens Phase IIIC, a 4 lot residential subdivision on 1.3 acres of land lying east of East Nicklaus Avenue and south of the Ritzman Lane intersection. Jentz showed a site plan. He said this is a four lot subdivision in Village Greens, and is being reviewed as a major subdivision because it is part of a larger subdivision. He stated the property lies on the east side of Village Greens on East Nicklaus Avenue with Ritzman Lane to the north. There is one vacant lot to the south and the property is surrounded by single family housing and backs on the Whitefish River. On the plat it is shown as Neighborhood Park B. The site is located in Village Greens Phase III which received preliminary plat approval in 1991, this is the East Side Homeowners Park. He.stated it is .74 of an acre, and is a linear band along the river to Evergreen Drive. Jentz explained that the applicants want to take the four lots and plat them and that the Homeowners Association owns the land. The Association voted by mail ballot to amend the plat to reduce the size of the homeowner's park, sell the lots, and use the proceeds to build a community center on the west side. Jentz stated that two questions were before the board, is this an appropriate four lot subdivision and is it appropriate to change a homeowner's park to a subdivision. He stated the subdivision continues the pattern of single family development and has water and sewer, street in front, etc. The only things staff would ask for is sidewalks and street trees, and that the subdivision must be developed to city standards. Jentz said there is currently a 30 foot irrigation access easement, which should remain as an access down to the river and as a park. He stated the impacts were minor, and the park would be reduced by .74 of an acre. Jentz said the real issue is, should there be a subdivision there at all? He said the issue is clouded because it is a homeowner's park, and was developed in the county, which gave the park to the Homeowner's Association. He explained Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of November 18, 2003 Page 9 of 14 0 the Homeowner's Association voted to sell the land by a 3/4 vote, but there is dissent about the appropriateness of the election. However, this is a homeowner's issue, and the city is not an arbitrator. We are dealing with the request, not with the vote. Jentz read six points regarding whether the Homeowner's Association request should be granted or not: 1. They are the owners of the parkland; 2. They requested the action by election; 3. The city should not be drawn in to arbitrate an election of a local board; 4. Glacier Village Greens has more parkland than statutorily required -- 30.6 acres in common parkland, not counting the golf course or developer's parks; with 53 acres in lots equating to approximately 60% of the area dedication. 5. The resulting proceeds are pledged to build a community center for 12 month use; 6. The park has not been developed in the 10 years it has been platted. Jentz summarized by stating that staff recommends approval of the subdivision as designed, and approval of the change because the Homeowner's Association is requesting it. The board's issue is does the impact to the immediate neighbors overrule the wishes of the entire community? Atkinson asked how many voters there were in the Homeowner's Association. Jentz answered 312. PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened to those who wished to speak on the issue. APPLICANTS/AGENCIES Erica Wirtala, Sands Surveying, representing the applicants, stated that this is a four lot subdivision which is zoned City R-4, with 6,000 square foot lots. She stated there are 280 homes built in the Glacier Village Greens complex, and the mostly northern portion is yet to be built out (Phases 14-22). She said that the lower portion was developed to county standards, but that Phases 14-22 were (or will be) built to city standards and have sidewalks, curb, gutter. There has been parkland dedication required in every phase of the development, and there are 32 total acres in parkland, with 75 acres in lots; lands that were not final platted were included in her total. She said she also included Lot 167 which is owned by the Homeowner's Association and is the proposed community center. It is currently used as parkland, and has playground equipment, which will remain when the community center is built. The golf course was not included Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of November 18, 2003 Page 10 of 14 O in her total. There are 273 acres in total with 32.77 acres of parkland - by statute, only 8.8 acres are required. Wirtala stated that, contrary to the application, the community center will be constructed, then those four lots will be deeded to the builder in exchange for the center. She said that no funds will be given to the developer and that the assessment of the four lots will be the parameters for the developer to build the community center. She explained that at full build out, there will be over 1,000 residents in that area and that a community center will be tremendous asset. She said that the developer of the community will be a liaison between the community center committee and the builder. She said that the four lot parcel is about one acre, and that approximately 1/2 will remain as parkland with the 30 foot access strip to the river. She said that the existing homeowners will see landscaped, single family homes, with mountains in the background instead of a view of the plywood plant. There will be no reduction in property values. Wirtala said that the lower portion of the development has no sidewalks because it was built to county standards, and they would rather not have to install sidewalks on those four lots; they will, however, bring in street trees and have curb and gutter. She said the developments on either side of the parcel have no sidewalks. Wirtala stated that the Homeowner's Association did meet with the County Commissioners, held a public meeting, and did sign off on the plat, but they do not have an official letter from them yet. She will be getting it as soon as possible. PUBLIC COMMENT Attorney Rich DeJana, representing the dissenting homeowners, stated that the Homeowner's Association election is not the board's issue tonight. He said that Phase IIIA was approved by the County Commissioners in 1993, and that the lots in acreage are 10.94, not 4.9. He said that there is a four acre park within the subdivision, which should have been developed, but the developer did not do it. He said the preliminary plat stated that a homeowner's park was to be provided, and that it was a requirement on the developer, but that they no longer have a park. According to the plat, it dedicates the parkland forever, for the sole use of the owners and their successors and interests. It is understood that the value of the surrounding property is enhanced by the parkland. He said that the developer did not do what they were supposed to do, now they are taking it away, but they don't even know how much they will be getting for the property. He implored the board to keep the contract and deny the preliminary plat. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of November 18, 2003 Page 11 of 14 Donald Milo, 101 Palmer Drive, proponent, stated they have been trying to get a community center for many years, but everything goes back to the golf course. He said they will get a great community center for the property, and that 80% of the homeowners want a community center, and the trade will clean up an open lot. He said this is an asset for Village Greens in exchange for land that needs improving. Rachel Hanson, 134 East Nicklaus (and Great Falls), opponent, stated that Village Greens is a perfect fit for them, and they have purchased a townhome. She said she voted yes for the center, but now she wants to rescind her vote, because she does not want to send her grandkids to the west side of the community. She said she sent three letters to the Homeowner's Association to take back her vote and she never heard back from them. She stated that four lots will add more traffic, and wants to keep the park where it is. She feels the voting procedure was invalid and the townhouses need a park close by. Dick Christensen, 84 East Nicklaus, opponent, presented a letter from two of his neighbors, and they all live across from the park. He stated they have not.pushed for development of the park and liked it as vacant. land; he bought his property specifically because of the park. He said he is disturbed by the talk of "his view", that no one can walk by the river or use it, contrary to what was said, and that the land they are counting as parkland is wetlands and steep slopes that are unusable. He stated there are only two usable parks in the community and it is important to have both with the number of residents. Fred Kirkpatrick, 80 East Nicklaus, opponent, agrees that the river parkland is inaccessible and he bought his property because it was across from the park. Wink Hanson, 134 East Nicklaus (and Great Falls), opponent, stated that he has density concerns because of the townhouses and if they lose the park land, there are no other parks close by, they will have to walk clear to the community center. Don Peterson, 113 Trevino, proponent, stated the parkland is in name only and it has no other function and there is overwhelming support for a community center. They want to use the parkland as a vehicle for funding for the betterment of the whole community. Pat Brown, 201 West Nicklaus, vice president of the Homeowner's Association board, stated they have been trying to get a community center for years, there are limited winter activities and a community center will be beneficial for many Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of November 18, 2003 Page 12 of 14 residents. She said the park is weedy and nasty looking and it will be well landscaped if it is sold as lots. She said the land exchange is the only way they can afford a community center without adding additional charges to their $10 month homeowner's dues. Tom Denham, 167 Ritzman Lane, board member, gave a history of their attempts to get a community center. He said they had a law firm look at their by-laws and write a ballot. He said there were 240 out of 312 responses in favor, which is a 76.9% approval. He said there are six homes across the street from the park and he hoped they would have some compassion for the 80% who want this project. Jim Connelly, 231 West Nicklaus, president of Homeowner's Association, stated that the members did not want a club house, because they wanted to control it themselves, they did not want the golf course to own it. They wanted it to become a center for the community and they have a piece of property ideally suited for the site. He said they don't know what it will look like. He honors the will and effort of the minority, and they have a right to protect themselves, however, there is a difference of opinion, and dissention is normal. He said the homeowners made their intent clear, and this is the will of the Homeowner's Association. It is his responsibility as board president to see that their wishes become a reality. Wirtala clarified her acreages, and said she did not include any of the developer's park area, except for Lot 167. Lot 167 is dedicated to the Homeowner's Association. DeJana clarified that the issue is the dedication on the plat to the lot owners, not to the Homeowner's Association. He said that this amounts to a taking of their property. No one else wished to speak and the public hearing was closed. MOTION Hinchey moved and Atkinson seconded to adopt staff report KPP-03-13 as findings of fact and, based on these findings, recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the preliminary plat approval of Glacier Village Greens Phase IIIC be approved subject to the 14 conditions. BOARD DISCUSSION Hull asked Connelly if the developers were a majority of the Homeowners Association. Connelly said there were 22 lots owned by developers, so they are not the majority. or asked DeJana if the easements were in Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of November 18, 2003 Page 13 of 14 DeJana stated the certificate of survey creates an easement, and the statement on the face of the plat creates an easement to the lot owners. The expectation is given to each lot owner, and each owner must give it up. The easement belongs to the lot owner and the Homeowner's Association cannot take it away. Taylor stated it looks like this is an issue only a court of law can decide, and we are not a court of law. Hinchey asked if we can strengthen the 30 foot access so that it is more park like? Jentz said they can put whatever they want in a condition, but that it needs to have a hook. It will still be a Homeowner's Park, and it can require a path, etc. AMENDMENT Hull moved and Hinchey seconded to amend condition 9: In addition, the 30 foot access and irrigation strip shall be developed with an established minimum 5 foot wide path with a minimum travel surface of gravel from East Nicklaus to the linear remainder part to accommodate all seasonal traffic. ROLL CALL (AMENDMENT) The amendment passed unanimously upon a roll call vote. ROLL CALL (MAIN MOTION) The main motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business except for the Roman Catholic Bishop of Helena matter, which will be continued until December 9. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:09 p.m. The next meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission will be held on Tuesday, December 9, 2003. APPROVED as submitted/corrected: \ Judi Funk Recording Secretary Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of November 18, 2003 Page 14 of 14