Loading...
04-29-03 Special MeetingKALISPELL CITY PLANNING BOARD & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING APRIL 29, 2003 'CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL A special meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and CALL Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Board members present were: Ron Van Natta, Rick Hull, Jean Johnson, George Taylor, Timothy Norton and Sue Ellen Anderson. Jim Atkinson -was absent. Narda Wilson "represented the Tri-City Planning Office. There were approximately 12 people in the audience. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ! Johnson moved anal Taylor seconded the motion to approve the minutes of the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning. Commission regular meeting of April 8, 2003. `The motion passed unanimously. ASHLEY MEADOWS INITIAL A request for an initial -zoning assignment of R-4, a Two ZONING UPON Family Residential district' filed concurrently with a request ANNEXATION for a 13 lot residential subdivision on approximately 4.415. acres located at the NE corner of Blue Stone and Denver Avenue. ASHLEY MEADOWS A request for preliminary plat approval of a 13 lot residential ' SUBDIVISION subdivision on approximately 4.415 acres located at the PRELIMINARY PLAT northeast corner of Blue Stone and Denver Avenue in southwest Kalispell'. STAFF REPORT `Narda Wilson; with the Tri-City Planning Office, gave a KA-03'-_6 AND KPP 03-3 `presentation of staff reports KA-03-6 and KPP-03-3 evaluating the appropriate zoning designation and the preliminary plat. She noted area has had a substantial amount of subdivision activity over the last several years and: this' is an additional small area that has good development potential. The property is located on the east side of Denver Avenue, south of ' Sunnyside Drive and north of Stratford Subdivision. The property contains approximately 4.4 acres and the property owner is the applicant. They are proposing to subdivide the property into 13 lots, extend a road into the subdivision and extend water and sewer to service the subdivision. The infrastructure would be built to City standards which mean curbs, gutters, sidewalks and a landscape boulevard. In order to receive City services the owners are required to annex to the City. They R-4 zoning has been proposed. This will allow duplexes and single-family dwellings as permitted uses. The minimum lot size for the district is 6,000 square feet. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the special meeting of April 29, 2003 Currently the propertyy is listed in the County jurisdiction and it is zoned R- L In the immediate area there is City R-4 zoning to the south and to the east in South Meadows. To the west is the City R-3 and the remaining area to west is zoned R-1, a County zoning designation that requires a one acre -minimum lot size for newly created lots that , are generally not on public sewer. The growth policy anticipates an urban density development in this area when City utilities are available. The urban land use. density is typically anticipated to be 4 to 12 dwelling units per acre and under the R-4 zone this would be well within that allowable density. This is consistent with the land use pattern in the area, the anticipated development under the growth policy and the type of single family and duplex development that would be anticipated. The staff is recommending that the planning board adopt the staff report KA-03-6 and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the appropriate zoning would .be R-4, Two Family Residential, upon annexation to the city. With regard to the subdivision, the applicant is proposing 13 lots on approximately e 4.4 with a remainder parcel where is house is located. The lots would be between 6,700 square feet and 32,000 square feet, well above the minimum lot size for R-4. The Knolls house lies to the south of: the ,proposed internal access road and this property isnot being. included in the subdivision but will be left as a remainder tract. He would like to remain on his community well and on site sewage treatment system. Those are issues..th.at will have to be dealt with during the approval of. the water and. sewer facilities to the site. The general land use area is urban density to the south and to the west and to the southeast within the South Meadows subdivision where City utilities are available. The City will provide full public services to the subdivision once annexed. A hydrant will be brought and adequate turn around will be created for the fire trucks. The fire department would like to approve the fire access and suppression system prior to any combustibles being brought onto the site. . One distinguishing feature is Ashley Creek that runs along the north boundary of the property. The floodplain map 1815 that was revised in 1992 and establishes the floodplain elevation at 2928. All of the lots where houses would be constructed are well outside the 100-year floodplain area. Another significant feature of the site is a fairly steep slope along the north boundary going down to Ashley Creek. There is an approximately 20-foot drop between the top of the hill and the edge of floodplain. There is more concerned about the development of this area on steep slopes than the Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the special meeting of April 29, 2003 Page 2 i l � floodplain. Therefore a recommended conditional of approval is that..a. 40 x 40 building pad be indicated on lots 4 and 5 that is outside of the steep slope area and within the R-4 zoning setbacks. It appears that lots 3, 4 and 5 do not comply with the minimum lot width of the R-4 zoning designation which is 50 feet. Those lots will have to slightly reconfigure to comply with the minimum lot width requirements. Lots 9 and 10 to "th south-are'.on A. ou.l=de=sacand are considered irregularly `shaped lots. 'The lot width is measured from the building set back lines that is 15 feet. They meet the 50-foot minimum lot width. - 'A new access road will be developed off of Denver Avenue to serve this subdivision. This road does not bring a clean. alignment with tYie extension of Bismarck. The offset between Bismarck and the new access road to the north is 100 feet. The subdivision .regulations require a 17Lir,imum offset of 125 feet thereby requiring that the applicant obtain a variance to the roadway alignment requirements. The reason for the variance to those roadway alignment requirements `is because Mr'. Knoll's house is right in the middle of where the roadway extension would be were it to be extended in a straight line. This variance request went to the site development review committee along with the subdivision and it was a unanimous consensus that the City supports a recommendation for a variance to avoid requiring a relocation 'of Knoll's house. However, a reconsideration of alignment of roadway would be warranted because it would result in a better subdivision design and probably additional lots. The staff will continue to work with Mr. Knoll regarding this issue, but .essentially a reconfiguration would end up with a new location for the cul-de-sac. Lots on the north and south of the roadway thereby making full use of the infrastructure on both sides of the road. There are some practical reasons for not relocating the house because it is.a split: entry and would likely result in forsaking the entire structure which is only around ten years old. An additional variance is being south regarding the lot design. The subdivision regulations require lots have no greater depth than three times the width. The lots in the area to the north exceed the length to width ratio because they back up to the flood plain and steep slope area. There is an evaluation of the variance requests based on the evaluation criteria in the staff report. The subdivision regulations address, variances and the two are being asked for dealing with the road alignment and the lot design. Both of the .variances are based on unique circumstances that would result in a hardship to owner versus an Kalispell City Planning Board AMmitPc nfthP en ial —PPtin of Anril 90 ?nna inconvenience. With a variance regarding the lot configuration, the special circumstance in this situation, is the topography of the property and the shape of the property. It is an oddly shaped lot .with a point to the north that is unusable. Essentially the lots would comply with the three to one length to width ratio of the steep slope and floodplain were removed. The. :property is_ within school District 5. and it can be estimated that this subdivision will generate and additional five to seven students into District 5 at full build out. An ''additional requirement for major subdivisions is parkland dedication and open space of 11 percent or one ninth of the area in lots. The environmental assessment notes that cash in lieu of ,parkland ';is being proposed in the amount of . $3,887 which is based. on a valuation of $10,000 per acre and unimproved value bf the area in lots. The staff is making, three recommendations to the planning board': (1) a recommendation for R-4 zoning upon annexation; (2) approval of the variance requests for the road alignment and length 'to width variance on the lot design and (3) approval, of the subdivision subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report. A minor amendment to the conditions in the staff report is to delete the reference to "Denver Court" in condition 5 to read "the road within the subdivision shall be signed in accordance with policies of the Kalispell Public Works Department and the Uniform Traffic Control Devices Manual and be subject to review and approval of the Kalispell Fire Department." Denver Court is an issue for the applicant but will be ultimately left up to the fire department and public works department. The applicant can discuss the issue of the road name with that department. PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened to those who wished to speak on the issue. APPLICANT/AGENCIES Erica Wirtala, Sands Surveying, 2 Village Loop representing , the applicant addressed the board asking that if additional ,question come up after the public hearing they would appreciate the opportunity to answer those questions. She reiterated the point that due to the location of the house, where the Knolls reside, it would create a considerable devaluation to the home if not a total loss. The Knolls believe that because of this it will be best to leave it in place and design the subdivision around it. The property where the house is located is not part of the subdivision. Ridgeview Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the special meeting of April 29, 2003 P..,. A i Court has been granted an easement across this property but is not apart of the subdivision. The variance to the design criteria for road alignment of 125 feet from .center line to center line of Bismarck and Ridgeview Court will have a minimal impact because it is a dead end street'with traffic coming in and out for a cul-de-sac and not a%through street. The road will only be used by the families of the 13 lots which will limit the traffic flow. On the issue of the second variance request of the . 3 to 1 length to width ratio, thehomes on the 'designated lots will be building homes to the front portions of the properties and the ' remainder of those lofts will remain in acreage. They will comply with the design standards for the City. The applicant has chosen "cash in lieu of parkland" because 4 there' is a 'lot north of the project that the City is attempting r ..,, to purchase and Begg Park in the immediate area. Tim Knolls, 880 Sunnyview Drive, stated he started two years ago to building one house on 4.4 acres for one of his. children. 'He went through the County and thought he could split the property into four one acre lots. But because of state laws that are in place and after visiting with Dick Amerman and Narda Wilson, he decided to look into developing a small subdivision instead. In looking at development in the: area they are trying to make the area' appealing to neighbors. He stated that they have lived in 'their home for ten years and have seen substantial growth during that period. !. 4 Ron Van Natta indicated ' they have received two written • comments from Sue Paulson and from David Smirnow in opposition .to the subdivision and the board we will take time :. to look at those letters at the conclusion of the hearing.' PUBLIC COMMENT Luke Knoll, 880 Sunnyview Drive stated he would be building in this area so he can raise family in a nice home r, and area. 'The cul-de-sac will reduce traffic in the area and he asked the board for their support on the project. Paul Hustead, 3036 Trumble Creek Road stated that he represents H &. H Custom Carpentry and that they that would be building houses in this area. He noted that he has Jived in this area and feels that this development would-be a good fit in with the other houses in the area. Because he lived in the Flathead Valley area, he can understand the growth issues and concerns. The houses that he will be building will be single family and one or two stories which will blend in with the other homes in this area. Sue Polson, 1827 Bluestone stated that she wrote one of the Kalispell City Planning Board letters that the board received. She is not opposed to development, but is interested in the city council addressing some of her issues. The R-1 zoning currently assigned to this property is single family and she moved to this area for the zoning. She currently lives in an area with an R-4 zoning and she does not want massive amounts townhouses, Like much of Ashley Park, abutting her property. She wants the quiet family life style that is in the neighborhood now. She questioned why if zoned R-4 it does not include the Knoll - home and why if it is in the City it would remain on- septic and well. If there is a subdivision then everyone needs to be on City water and sewer. She knows it will add additional cost but with subdividing,. the cost can be made up. She is concerned about the number of children in the subdivision. In the current area there are 22 children and the area attracts families because of the relatively cheaper cost of the .housing. There is a need to address the traffic and safety concerns of children playing'in the area. You can read other concerns in regard to the zoning in the letter she wrote and she will try to answer any questions. Dave Smirnow, 1819 Bluestone stated that he is a new residence from Ohio., Since he is from large cities, he has seen unplanned growth of country space. The planning in this case seems haphazard and piece meal. He would like to see a more cogent approach to development. He is not opposed to development but it needs to be done in a rational, well thought out way including green space and parks near to homes, ,without the risk of children being injured by cars or other moving vehicles. He would like to have these close to his home. The cost of housing in this area is reasonable for the Valley and many young families and children are moving in with. increased traffic as a result. Without park. land and play areas., there is a significant risk of injury to the children and pedestrians as well as disturbance to the character of the neighborhood. He is glad to hear that the Knolls are staying in area; because it is. reassuring that. the quality of the housing and nature of the lots will be in tune with the surrounding neighborhoods. However, from the density of the houses in this section town, he is concerned about what impact this mode of development will bring to the area. Because he has seen urban sprawl take over farmlands in other areas, he is worried about sprawl in these areas and does not want it to happen here. No one else wished to speak and the public hearing was closed. MOTION. Johnson moved and Anderson seconded a motion to accept the requested initial zoning of R-4 upon annexation to the city of Kalispell and adopt the staff report, KA-03-6 as findings of fact. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the special meeting of April 29, 2003 Dose A, USSI, George Taylor said that this development is consistent with the growth policy that the planning board recommended and the city council adopted. Ron Van Natta noted that it is consistent with the growth policy for this area because it is designated as an area for urban residential development in the growth policy. This zoning certainly fits that criteria and is consistent with the zoning of the. area. Jean 'Johnson commented that the subject property is totally surrounded by similar types- of zoning and that the requested zoning seems to be consistent .with the area. Van Natta noted that the R4 does allow for townhouses or duplexes and that there is the potential for that type of development to occur. Norton asked if there would be a need for a variance to the zoning. Wilson responded°.that the zoning issue is addressed by condition 9 of 'the preliminary plat that the lots within the subdivision be reconfigured so that all lots meet the 50 foot Jot width requirement of the R-4 zoning district. So they do have the ability to rearrange the lots just by a minor redesign thereby getting them to comply with zoning. That would not 'require a variance. When the .subdivision comes in for final plat approval there would be a redesign on that so those lots would meet those 50 foot lot width and would also designated a 40 x 40 foot building pad is off of the steep slope to the north and as a result may end up loosing a lot. Taylor asked about the statement of moving the house would be a hardship but not an inconvenience and if that would render condition 13 a moot point. Wilson responded that condition 13 states that"consideration" be given to relocating the house which would result in a better design. If ultimately Mr. Knoll decides that he does not want to move the house, then the proposed design would stay in place. Byputting•in that reconsideration to relocate the house to allow for the. 'alignment and extension of Bismarck, it would allows"txse redesign of the subdivision without further preliminary plat review before the planning board and council. With that condition it is recognized that the redesign is the preferred alternative. Mr. Hull asked if Mr. Knoll owns the lot to th:e• north and 'it was answered that he does not, but rather has a shared well agreement with the property owners. As a follow-up to some of the questions that arose at the meeting, Wilson noted that in one of letters there was a reference to multi -family development, The R-4 zoning does not allow multi -family development as either a permitted or Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the snecial meetina of Anril 29.2003 conditionally permitted use but rather.,it .anticipates single- family and duplexes as the primary uses. It would be essentially the same type and size of development that they have in 'Stratford Subdivision immediately to the south. Typically with the R-4 zones, you are not seeing any more 25 percent of the lots being developed in a duplex fashion. Wilson noted that leaving the Knoll property where the house sits as an island in the county could cause some confusion with emergency service. personnel. It was a unanimous recommendation from the. site review committee to require that the property be annexed and this was included as one of the conditions of approval. It is recommended that the property be annexed into the city concurrent with the first phase of final plat., approval. This is from practical standpoint and also for, emergency purposes. Logistically this makes sense.. ..Van, Natta said that Mr...Smimow mentioned parks which has been a. problem that we have dealt with before. There has been talk of a park north of Sunnyside, but he is not sure if anything has materialized. It is difficult with less than one; acre to develop a park in every area. Wilson noted that .the City subdivision regulations have criteria.. that the City will not. accept anything under a one „ acre site for parkland. A .homeowner's association could develop the 0.3 acres instead of the cash in lieu of parkland, but. it would be a private .homeowners park that would be owned and maintained by a homeowner's association. Small parks do not generally provide adequate recreational space. Taylor asked if the applicants had any issues with the remainder portion being annexed. Wirtala responded that they were did not object to being annexed and realized it was a condition of approval. ROLL CALL, The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. MOTION (MAIN) Johnson moved and Anderson seconded a motion to adopt the findings in staff report KPP-03-3 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the subdivision be approved subject to, the 16 conditions outlined in the staff report. MOTION (VARIANCE ON Johnson moved and Anderson seconded a motion to adopt THE LOT DESIGN) staff report KPP-03-3, as findings of fact and grant the variance to the requirement "that no lot shall have a greater depth that 3 times its average width, unless the lot width is greater that two hundred feet." Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the special meeting of April 29, 2003 Page 8 BOARD DISCUSSION Hull said it seemed to be a typical hardship where there is something unusual about the property that requires and allows a variance. In this case because of the steep: slope, he thinks a variance makes sense. Van Natta agreed with the above, and it is situation where we are coming up against a creek and there are some kinds of odd boundaries that have to be dealt with. He is in concurrence. ROLL CALL = The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. MOTION (VARIANCE TO Johnson moved and Anderson seconded a motion that staff THE ROAD`OFF=SET report KPK-03-3 be adopted as findings of fact and that a REQUIREMENTS) :..r variance be granted to the requirement that "two streets meeting a third• street from an opposite side shall meet at the same point or -there center lines shall be offset by at least - 1'25 feet for local roads and 300 feet for arterials." BOARD DISCUSSION ` "Jean Johnson would normally be opposed to the variance but given the circumstances ' in this instant, he would be in favor of it. Norton agreed with Johnson, that under the circumstances of the house being there, he does not think that 25 feet is going to make a huge amount of difference on visibility or safety. •ROLL.CALL The motion, passed unanimously on a roll call vote. ROLL CALL .(MAIN MOTION) .. The motion .passed unanimously on a roll call vote. AMENDED PLAT OF LOT .3, . 'A request for a preliminary plat approval of the Amended Plat DALEY FIELD. of Lot 3 of_ Daley Field Subdivision, a four lot commercial subdivision on approximately 7.41 located on the west side of Highway 93 across from Kelly Road. STAFF REPORT KPP-03-4 Wilson noted that this property is located on the west side of Hwy 93 directly across from Kelly Road. Rosauers lies to the north, the water resources board to the south along with Penco and Big, R and, the Kalispell City Airport adjoins this property to the west. Lot 3 is part of a subdivision the City of Kalispell did when Daley Field was subdivided into three lots .and sold. The ballfields were relocated to the Kalispell Youth Athletic Complex in Section 36. The property is in the Airport Urban Renewal District and this property was sold shortly after the district was created that was intended to do some improvements to the City airport. The current property owner is now coming before the board and asking for approval of a four lot commercial subdivision on the property that was previously owned by the City and part of Daley Field Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the special meeting of April 29.2003 This subdivision creates an intersection with Kelly Road and Hwy 93. The lots are zoned B-2, 'General Business and anticipated for commercial uses. The entire subdivision contains 7.42 acres with the lots in the subdivision ranging from 1.3 acres to 2 acres in size. The developer does not know what the future uses will be because the lots will probably be sold and developed by a new owner. The zoning allows for a wide range or retail, equipment uses, office uses, almost any commercial use is allowed under the B-2 zoning. A new access road will be extended to serve the subdivision thereby creating a four way intersection with Kelly Road. The Montana Department of Transportation is planning on upgrading Hwy 93 between Ashley . ; Creek and . the Courthouse. Part of those plans are to, reconstruct the 3=d Ave East intersection which will dead-end at Sun Rental and a new light will .be installed at the Rosauers intersection to .create a four-way intersection. The people who live and work in the Kelly Road area are in agreement that a light is' badly needed, but currently DOT will not put a light there because they do not believe it is warranted. However, a signal maybe warranted after the development of property and the creation of the new intersection.. The new roadway intersection with Kelly Road and Hwy 93 will need to be reviewed by MDOT and the developer would have make any necessary improvements. MDOT and City have been encouraging the extension of an access road that currently goes from Big R, past vacant property, passed Penco and. past the state building. Staff would recommend: consideration be given to adding a note to the plat as an additional condition that "an access. easement be provided to Lot 2 of Daley Field subdivision to the north." This can accomplished by simply placing a note on the plat. or showing an actual easement that would"basically . . allow access between the parking lots and so there 1s 'access to the light on Third Avenue East. Van Natta asked if this would replace putting in a road and Wilson responded that it would not be a road per say but it rather like an internal access roads within the parking area like other parking lot designs. The backup space could be used as an access easement. There would be an easement on the plat for proposed Lots 1 and 4. Van Natta said that if the MDOT were concerned they would be building a frontage road. Wilson responded that this would not be a frontage road just an alternate access easement. Wilson noted that in evaluating the environmental conditions on the site, this area is designated as having hydric soils. However, this would not be considered a major impediment to development since there is no threat of flooding. A Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the special meeting of April 29, 2003 drainage easement was developed with the initial platting of - Daley Field and lies directly to the east. This propeity`is in;the Airport Urban Renewal District, and when the property was. sold it was intended that the funds " would go for infrastructure improvements within the district ''either to directly to improvement for the Kalispell City Airport or for the extension of utilities for the 93 reconstruction to Four Corners. No development agreement with the City was executed. for -this property. .when it was sold so there are no restrictions regarding its, development. Therefore, it can be subdivided "or developed. as the current property owner might propose. '`Because of the proximity to the City airport, there may be 'some height' restrictions on the lots on the west end of the site: It should` be ' noted that there is a transition slope J,arouri:d the airport that limits the height and development potential of some property ii the area. There is an estimated "17 foot height limitat the ` rear property boundary, so by moving the parking to the east there should be no significant impediment to developing either one of the western lots. The staff- is are recommending that a note be placed on the plat that .states that'some building height restrictions may be applicable due to, the proximity of the lots to the Kalispell City Airport. This will'be"disclosed to anyone buying these - lots. ' There are no variances to the subdivision regulations being requested with the subdivision, it is in compliance with the B-2 zoning regulations' and the Kalispell Growth Policy that anticipates the development of this area as commercial. 'The staff is recommending approval of the subdivision - - subject to the listed -in the staff report. and a recommendation that an additional condition be considered that a note on plat be made to provide an access easement to - Lot 2 of Daley Field Subdivision to the north. PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was .opened to those who wished to speak I.on the project. APPLI'CANTJA.GENCIES John 'Schwarz of Schwarz Architecture and Engineering, 100 Financial Drive stated he represents the developer. They just got information on the easement condition and he strongly disagrees with the recommendation for an access easement. The applicant. for this subdivision owned the property between Big R and Penco for several years. When MDOT came ' through with their design for the highway improvement, they 'discussed creating a frontage road. The owner of Big R was concerned about those im.provemen6ts and wanted to procure a 30 foot strip to prevent direct highway access to properties between Big R to the State Building. Those property owners drafted a Memorandum of Kalispell City Planning Board Understanding with all the landowners except the City of Kalispell, who owned lot three of the Daley Field Subdivision at that time. We went to the City and asked for an easement for access along the property, and the City responded that it was a significant burden to their property they did not want. The City did finally encourage landowner to work with other landowners to the south of what is shown as of Lot 1. Schwarz said he looked. at all the warrants on Kelly Road and fe.els. they.. are met .to.justify the installation of. a. traffic light. When the MDT did their traffic model the warrants were met. Their concerned was about the significant amount of traffic entering Kelly Road that was north bound and was turning right and said no signal was necessary based on that analysis. They are working with landowners, MDT and with City staff on convincing the State that a light at Kelly Road is necessary., If we cannot convince MDT to put in the light, we do not want to be burdened with an easement that does not �iake..sense. If the City felt the easement was necessary, and the City felt that is was,necessary to connect Lots 1, 2 and 3 of Daley Field Subdivision,. it should have been in place when the City divided Daley Field.. We ask that this condition not be imposed. on us since the ,City of Kalispell was unwilling to ..assume the same burden when they subdivided Daley Field. .We are willing to discuss access to north and south landowners, and we feel it is unfair for the City to ask that this be put on a conditional subdivision plat. There would probably be.. some compensation to owner if the easement were requested. Furthermore, Schwarz stated DOT does not seem to be encouraging the extension of the easement. We want DOT to encourage that extension and would like them to build a frontage road and allow all lots to access the arterial at one location. DOT will not move fast enough and we are trying as best we can bring those lots into a single access. Van Natta asked if the right of way shown here innludes what the State has acquired for the new road and if the current plat shows the lot boundary. Schwarz responded that the State has acquired what they need for the, high -Way upgrades .and that they do not need any additional land. Schwarz said the MDT's policy that he disagrees with it that they will not purchase right of way for frontage roads. Taylor asked if they ever build a frontage road then they would have to have a series of negotiations with all the property . owners. Schwarz stated he worked with another firm for S years to get the frontage road built and if the MDT is "encouraging". that he wishes they would be more cooperative. They have been told they will and then they will not install this light. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the special meeting of April 29, 2003 ,... I- PUBLIC COMMENT Tom Sullivan manager of Rosauers .stated : that .. they. have concerns about traffic flow between the lots';' Traffic congestion in the area leads to the conclusion that they need access for these three lots. Unless a signal goes in on Kelly, people will be driving cross-country. ' Norton asked Schwartz if the property -owner has` talked to �Rosauers about going through Lot 1 into Rosauers parking lot and' then taping into this Kelly Court Road. Schwarz responded' they had discussed with .most .landowners that 'they would see a benefit to vehicular communication along `that entire access between properties. This makes sense because you can go between properties without entering a "niaj or arterial. The problem is how to set this up and establish cost sharing. You' cannot. put the entire financial burden on Lot 3 of Daley Field Subdivision. There is compensation and ­a road construction agreement proposed where all the people would pay of the road with the property owners to the south. 'It is important to note and MDT will riot allow the road rune along their right-of-way. We have to be about 200 feet back such that with a 20 degree field of vision all the stacking, lanes that are entering that controlled access are coming in within a 20 degree field of vision. Murcon sees this as a. positive thing. MOTION 'Taylor moved and Johnson seconded a motion to adopt staff report KPP-03-4 and recommend to the city council that the preliminary plat be approved subject to the conditions enumerated on the staff report. Wilson recommended that the board stay with 12 conditions in the staff report and discuss .the issue of the access road,at a future date. If the board wants to ad`d° That cordtion or some other language that is developed they can make an amendment to the motion. BOARD.. DISCUSSION Johnson questioned whether there was any consideration given to running a cul-de-sac down to the west boundary of -the property to give better access to the two back lots. Schwartz ' said he would anticipate that it would create a parking lot, and he was not sure they would want to encourage additional access and entrances onto the City streets. He was uncertain at this time. .Schwartz noted that the MDT requires that. all of the lots would have to access off of the cul-de-sac to avoid creating a driveway that would be too close to the intersection of Hwy 93 and Kelly Road. ROLL CALL The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. Kalispell City Planning Board TVinntPQ nfthP enrrinl-PPtinv of Anril 74 ?nn•l DORTHEY GETZ REQUEST. This is a request regarding the initial zoning of B-2 upon FOR INITIAL ZONING OF annexation to the city on approximately 3.2 acres located on B-2 UPON ANNEXATION the south side of Appleway Drive and 700 feet west of Meridian Road. STAFF REPORT KA-03-7 Wilson noted that this property has been put up for sale and the buyer has initiated the request. The 3.2 acre property is on the south side of Appleway and west of Meridian Rd. The buyer _wants.' to ..annex.. the property so it can be developed with City water and sewer under a proposed B-2 zoning designation. .The zoning allows a variety of commercial uses as well as multi -family dwellings. The property is in the County and zoned R-1, a residential district with one acre minimum lot size. .The area where this.property is located can be described as a transition area on the :5:mges.of urban Kalispell. It is more commercial to the east where the commercial areas are well established and considered part of the commercial core. Center Street lies- to, the east and Lee's Meridian Business Park lies. to the south. The proposed zoning is consistent with other B-2 zoning assignments in the area and with the type of development anticipated by the Kalispell Growth Policy. The staff is recommending that the planning board adopt staff report. KA-03-7 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that this property be zoned B-2, General Business, upon annexation. PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened to those who wished to speak on the proposal. APPLICANT/AGENCIES David Graham, 12.8 W..:Bluegrass stated that the purchase of this property is conditioned, on successful zoning of this property. to B-2 that will allow multi -family housing. The plan is to develop it with six-plex or eight-plex dwellings. There. is a constant frustration on the.. part ;o buy.er. ,.;and realtor to find. and. satisfy a real need for small parcels where a multi -family use is allowed. There is about a 96 percent occupancy rate in the city and surrounding area. The buyer wants to build a quality development that will blend with the community around it. On the north side of Appleway, it is currently zoned B-2. The property will be developed to create a corridor of nice units that will have direct access to the "rails to. trails." bike and pedestrian path out their back doors. There are only a few small parcels available for this type of development and this is one. The site has always been B-2 in. reality and is currently a junkyard. H6 told. the board he felt the community would be happy with this development. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the special meeting of April 29, 2003 D--- t A PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public'comment. MOTION Anderson moved and Taylor seconded the motion t.o. -adopt staff report KA-03-7 as findings in fact' and ,recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the property bezonedB-2 -upon annexation. . .... ..BOARD DISCUSSION Johnson wanted to know Why they applied for B-2-zoning _but _going td-use -it --- a'63:ja. --family. Graham responded that the B-2 is consistent with the zoning in the area and allows them a number of permitted uses, including the multi -family as a permitted use. ROLL CALL "The motion passed unanimously on a roll vote.' EDGERTON-SCHOOL This is a request by Kalispell School District #5 for the initial - REQUEST FOR=TIAL" ;C` zoning 'designation. 'of P-1, Public, upon anrieXation ZONING. OF P-1 UPON Edgerton School to the city of Kalispell. ANNEXATION STAFF REPORT Wilson gave a staff report to the board and noted -that ale* school district is requesting the annexation of Edgerton Scho'ol'located at 1400'Whitefish Stage"Rda property -contains approximately 8.44 acres and is used as an ..elementary school operated by the Kalispell Public Schools. tThe property get sewer from the City of Kalispell via the TN6rth Village Sewer District and is surrounded by Buffalo .."Stag6 andother development that is now inside the City -limits. The' City wanted the school district to ask for annexation because it was one of the few parcels in the area on the City sewer system that is not in the city. The proposal went to the school board as is required under statute and the administration official has requested annexation. The property is currently in the county and is zoned RA- 1, a residential apartment district. There is mixed residential and some support non-residential uses in the area. The Kalispell Growth Policy recognizes this as public land so the P- I is an appropriate zoning designation. This property will not likely develop into something other than a school. The staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt staff report KA-03-4 as findings of fact and' forward a recommendation to the Kalispell City Council that the initial zoning for this property should be P- 1, Public, upon annexation. Kalispell City Planning Board A/finiitp,z nfthP mertin] mpF-ti-inc, of Anril ?Q ?nm PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened to those who wished to. speak on the matter. APPLICANT/AGENCIES There was comment from the applicant. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment and the public hearing was closed. MOTION -Taylor moved and Johnson seconded to adopt staff -report KA-03-04 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the initial zoning for the property should be P-1, Public, upon annexation. BOARD DISCUSSION Rick Hull said he believes this property was originally set apart from the subdivision as a school site. ROLL CALL. The motion passed .unanimously on a roll,call,vote. ADOPTION OF KALISPELL Consideration of adoption of the Kalispell Interim..Zoning INTERIM ZONING Ordinance as a permanent document in compliance with the ORDINANCE. Kalispell Growth Policy 2.020. STAFF REPORT #KZ-03-1 ; . Wilson presented a staff report and noted that on September 26, 2002 the Attorney General for the State of Montana issued an interpretation for 1999 legislation relating to the growth policy that has had a significant impact on the City of Kalispell and other communities with regard to zoning and zone amendments. The opinion stated that only non - substantive changes could be made after October 1, 2001 in zoning matters until a compliance growth policy is in place. Since.several substantive and non -substantive changes had been made between October 1, 2001 and the time of the opinion, the Kalispell City Council adopted an interim ordinance to ratify those changes while the growth policy was in progress, at the advice of the city attorney. The KalispellCity Council adopted the Kalispell Growth Policy 2002 on February 18, 2003. The growth policy provides the legal basis for the adoption of zoning regulations. Because the growth policy has been adopted, adoption of a permanent Kalispell Zoning Ordinance will finalize the previous amendments, both substantive and non -substantive changes. This action is more of an administrative gesture than. a substantive change. There were some changes that were made with the interim document which changed references the Flathead Regional Development Office to the Tri-City Planning Office, the Kalispell City -County Planning Board to the Kalispell City Planning Board and references to the master plan were changed to growth policy and so on. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the special meeting of April 29, 2003 D...... t G The staff is recommending that that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt staff report KZ-03-1 as findings of fact to recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the Kalispell Interim Zoning Ordinance be adopted permanently as the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. PUBLIC HEARING There was no one to speak at the public hearing and it was closed. APPLICANT/AGENCIES There were no. comments. MOTION Taylor moved and Anderson seconded a motion to adopt staff report KZ-03-1 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council the Kalispell Interim Zoning Ordinance be adopted permanently as the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. BOARD DISCUSSION Hull asked if this change of zoning and text amendments are considered as changes in zoning ordinance and will it ratify the changes permanently. Wilson said it would. ROLL CALL The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. NEW BUSINESS The board discussed the meeting for the following month and the types of items anticipated for the agenda. Taylor noted he would be absent from the May meeting. There was some additional discussion regarding legislative changes to the local building jurisdiction and the impact of the effective date of October 1, 2003. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at approxi.m.ately 8:45 p.m. The next meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission will be a held on Tuesday, May 13, 2003. Ron Van Natia, President APPROVED a ubmi e corrected: Kathy Jackso Recording Secretary Kalispell City Planning Board MimitPc nfthP gnrrial mPPtina of Anril ?4 ?nni