Loading...
09-10-02KALISPELL CITY PLANNING BOARD & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING _ SEPTEMBER 10, 2002 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: Bill Rice, Sue Ellyn Anderson, Jean Johnson, Mark Brechel, Ron Van Natta and Bonnie Spooner. Jim Atkinson had an excused absence. Narda Wilson represented the Tri-City Planning Office. There were approximately 54 people in the audience. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Brechel moved and Anderson seconded to approve the minutes of the Kalispell City Planning Board meeting of August 13, 2002 as submitted. On a vote by acclamation the motion passed unanimously. SUNNYSIDE SUBDIVISION A request by Owl Corporation for preliminary plat approval of PRELIMINARY PLAT a 62-lot residential subdivision on 10.029 acres located on the south side of Sunnyside Drive, west of Ashley Creek, property zoned R-4, Two -Family Residential. STAFF REPORT Narda Wilson, of the Tri-City Planning Office, gave a #KPP-02-6 presentation of staff report KPP-02-6, a request for O preliminary plat approval of a 62-lot residential subdivision on approximately 10.029 acres in the southwest part of Kalispell. The property was recently annexed into the city of Kalispell and given a zoning designation of R-4, a Two -Family Residential zone that is intended primarily for single-family and duplex homes. The subdivision would be platted for 24 single family homes and 16 townhouse lots and would be developed in three phases over a period of time depending on the market. Phase I would be developed directly to the west of Lone Pine View Estates consisting of 7 single family lots, then Phase II to the west consisting of 14 single-family lots and 16 townhouse sublots, the remaining lots would be developed in Phase III to the north along Sunnyside Drive. Utilities would be extended from Lone Pine View Estates located to the east and extended westward and then eventually looped to the north to connect in Sunnyside Drive. The developers would propose to pay cash in lieu of parkland dedication. Staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to conditions. Van Natta asked and Wilson answered that street lights would be included as standard infrastructure per the subdivision regulations. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of September 10, 2002 Page 1 Brechel asked and Wilson explained that looping water would have to be done to get adequate pressure and achieve fire flow as per the uniform fire code and depending on the water pressure may have to be completed prior to Phase III. APPLICANT/AGENCIES Mark Owens, 95 Stillwater Rd., spoke on behalf of Owl Corp., developers of the project. He said it was a family effort and the property was chosen because it made sense from the aspect of a good development project. He noted that Kalispell was expanding in that direction and they would be able to competently meet development criteria. He felt the development was needed. PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened to those who wished to speak on the issue. PROPONENTS No one wished:to speak. OPPONENTS Dale Pierce, 1015 Ashley Drive, said his land borders this subdivision across the street immediately north and he was strongly opposed. He stated reasons of density, noting that when they took out 2 acres for the road it left 7.55 acres for 62 units. He thought the recent rezoning to R-4 was probably illegal as per the Attorney General. He said the roads didn't meet standard right-of-way widths and he didn't O think the sewer treatment plant could handle all the additional annexations when it was at maximum capacity now during peak hours. Angie Kruckenberg, 1116 Sunnyside Dr., stated she adjoined the proposed development. She passed around pictures showing the land surrounding her home. She believed in a long-term growth policy and thought the change from R-1 to R-4 was radical. She said the 2.5 acres proposed for roads would leave average lot sizes of 5,500 square feet. She noted that 620 car trips would be generated on already narrow roads. She was opposed to the density and congestion of 62 homes on 10 acres and had concerns for the safety of the children. She thought it was important to say "no" to all new subdivisions until there was a long-range growth plan and new roads in : place that the developer paid for, not the taxpayers. She further noted the area proposed was in the Lone Pine Game Preserve and asked what would happen to the game. She asked them to consider the joy of a child watching a beautiful creature going by their yard, which was not possible when houses and lots had almost zero clearance. She reiterated her belief about healthy growth, and the vision of what is to be placed with the best interest of the entire community, not just with the developer and city cashier. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of September 10, 2002 Page 2 Lila Kruckenberg, 1204 Sunnyside Dr., said she was not opposed to the. subdivision, but opposed to the density. She felt the zoning was not compatible with the surrounding area and commented on a family transfer she did that only allowed her one dwelling per acre. She said the proposal asked for 10 dwellings per acre. She thought single-family was more compatible and the added traffic would have to be addressed because the roads were already too congested. She addressed the park issue stating Lone Pine was a hiking trail not a park for young children. She said the area was a prime walking and jogging area. She challenged the value the developer placed on the property for cash in lieu of parks and challenged the quoted number of children who would add to the school system. She also noted the game preserve and felt the staff had not done their homework. She hoped they would consider the issues and that the projected 7 million in tax revenue would not be their prime motivation. Norm Kruckenberg, 1116 Sunnyside Dr., noted several reasons why he agreed with the Attorney General that all subdivisions and zone changes had no legal effect without a growth policy in place. The roads to and from the subdivision were overloaded and substandard. He noted a map designation for a road from South Meadowa to Airport Road and out the northwest side, intersecting Sunnyside at 7h Avenue. He said it had not been built and might be another item developers pay not to build, just like the parks they don't build in subdivisions. He said the cash in lieu of park leaves more land to build homes on. He was not opposed to growth, but opposed to poorly planned subdivisions. He believed 5 single-family houses per acre should be the limit and concluded that this is a beautiful valley and they needed a good growth plan to keep it that way. Cheryl Pierce, 1015 Ashley Dr., stated she was strongly opposed to the project. She thought 30 townhouses indicated short-term residents. She said the report noted no trees and there were four. She said the City couldn't keep up with what sewer they already had and thought more trash would pose another obstacle course for traffic to dodge. She counted the vehicles that passed by her house now and was opposed to adding 620 more. She asked who would build the new schools and thought they were kidding by saying this many houses would only add 35 more students. Jim Battee, 808 Sunnyside Dr., commented on the recreational aspect of Sunnyside Drive. He said there were no sidewalks and the nearest basketball, swings, and slide was at Elrod School, but over a mile from this subdivision. He noted the, increase in traffic, especially during peak �J periods. He disagreed with the intensity, especially the townhouses, and said it was not congruent with the Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of September 10, 2002 Page 3 surrounding area. He noted the wildlife currently in the area and said that more people meant less available land for wildlife. He opposed the high concentration of homes and �) asked that before a decision be made they take a closer look at the area and travel the road. He thought adding more cars would be asking for trouble. Bruce Schomer,- 115 Boise, asked Mr. Owens to perish the thought on this one. Dwayne Fulton, 1035 Ashley Dr., stated his major concern was the safety. He thought over population and under moved ways to get people in and out was a problem. He said he heard about a bypass but thought the traffic pattern had changed and wondered how much more traffic the road could handle. He thought the Denver approach from the north was an accident waiting to happen because Ashley Creek was right off the edge and cars sped down Sunnyside Drive. He said before they worry about additional subdivisions they ought to do an engineered study to get the place squared away. He said the bypass, which is still in the making, better plan for getting on and off. Ray De Long, 310 Bismarck St., said he was the first to build in Lone Pine View Estates and he was not against this, but would like to see it scaled back to 35 units instead of 62. He thought the lots on the plat were smaller than his and his was very small at 7,000 square feet. He thought that crowding people into a small area was asking for trouble and that the roads were an accident waiting to happen. Chrysta Bourne, 630 10th St. W., said Sunnyside has a tremendous amount of foot traffic, bike traffic, children and women walking, and car traffic. She said the speed zones were not adhered to, which presented danger and hazards for people and for the additional traffic of the development. She noted the proposal said there was adequate police and she didn't believe it. She asked on what basis the developer stated there was a need for this development and asked if that need had arisen. Was there a demographic study? She noted the other subdivisions that were not full and stated she was not in favor of the development. Dorinda Bilings, 60 Denver Ave., said it was, absurd to construct 62 units on 10 acres. She said it would create havoc to what was designated as a game preserve and noted the area's wildlife. She felt they had become blind to the sensitivity of nature. She thought the units built in lieu of a park would bring into someone's coffers far more than the $5,000 contributed. She thought crowding people onto 10 1 acres would require a park and that Lone Pine trail would l not suffice for the elderly, disabled, or children. She asked if the developer would be responsible to widen Sunnyside Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of September 10, 2002 Page 4 O Drive, put in curbs and construct a wider bridge across Ashley Creek. She thought the subdivision would create those needs now rather than in the future. She felt the proposed subdivision should be denied because it would severely deplete the quality of life on the west side of Kalispell. Marvin Vaughn 116 Denver Ave., asked them to at least put in a park. He said the kids were not going to ride their bikes or walk to Begg Park and there were no sidewalks. He said, put in a park and not so many houses. He noted the noise of the traffic going by his house at all hours. Mr. Fulton added that the Lone Pine State Park committee, of which he was a member, was developing a 5-year study and their main concern was traffic and where to put all the people visiting the hiking trail. No one else wished to speak and the public hearing was closed. BOARD DISCUSSION Brechel wondered where everyone was during the zone change hearing and said it would help the board if they could hear comments like these from the get go. He asked and Wilson explained minimum lot sizes for the R-4 zone. Mr. Batte stated there was no notification about the land being rezoned. Van Natta said he recalled some people who spoke at the hearing. Mrs. Kruckenberg and several others in the audience said they were not notified of the pending subdivision. Van Natta stated it was his understanding that adjacent landowners were notified and there was nothing he could do at this point. Wilson stated they had a certified list from the County Plat Room of adjoining landowners and notification was sent to those addresses via certified mail regarding the subdivision. MOTION Anderson moved and Rice seconded to adopt staff report KPP-02-6 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the preliminary plat be approved subject to 14 staff recommended conditions. BOARD DISCUSSION Anderson agreed with Brechel and was pleased to see the public turnout. She said she understood the traffic problem and sympathized with that. She said they, as a board, would do what they could to determine the best growth for that area. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of September 10, 2002 Page 5 Rice questioned the research on road and wildlife findings. Wilson said the area was not designated as an area as important wildlife habitat, with no creeks or streams running f through the property that would provide habitat. She said they had a resource and analysis document that documented important wildlife habitats and this area was not designated as such. A game preserve is something different that important wildlife habitat. Spooner noted the discrepancy and Wilson said there may be wildlife or a corridor, but noted that the entire property was fenced with barbed wire, which limited the ability for wildlife to travel through. She also noted that if it were maintained as an important wildlife habitat or identified as such, other consideration would be given. With regard to roads, Wilson noted the formula used for calculating the amount of road trips per day was standard and it included things like mail service and UPS deliveries. Rice asked if the impact to roads was from a study or if she consulted with. the road department. Wilson said the west side was designated for urban expansion and this was not beyond what would be anticipated for growth in the area. She noted the Kalispell Master Plan anticipated this kind of growth and the associated- impacts giving this area and Urban Residential land use designation. She also addressed comments about substandard road widths and noted Sunnyside Drive and Valley View were County roads and they complied with County standards. Brechel asked and Wilson explained that a throughway was extended through South Meadows subdivision and Denver was not the only access out of the subdivision. Rice asked about guidelines for cash in lieu of parks and Wilson explained the criteria and regulations for major subdivisions. She said the money for cash in lieu of parkland would be spent on improvements to Begg Park, which lies to the east. Rice clarified the cash in lieu would go directly to the park and Wilson explained there were statutes in place requiring the money be spent on park improvements rather than maintenance, which reflected state and local regulations. She said it would go to a special fund, not a general fund. Rice asked and Mr. Owens answered that Phase I would begin in the Spring of 2003 and they were looking out to the next 5 years for completion of the project. Spooner noted the public was not opposed to growth in the area and asked Owens if he would compromise to make this workable. Mr. Owens stated he was reluctant to openly compromise because it fit zoning and criteria. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of September 10, 2002 Page 6 Brechel felt the zoning fit the criteria but wanted a traffic study for Surmyside, 7th, and Meridian. Wilson explained �) that a traffic study would assess the impacts of the roads in \ the area and identify mitigation measures that could be taken to address the impacts. MOTION (AMENDMENT) Brechel moved and Spooner seconded to add condition # 15 to require a traffic study for the subdivision. BOARD DISCUSSION Rice asked what the traffic study would cost and Spooner asked who would pay for it. Wilson answered she didn't know for certain but would likely cost somewhere between $2,000 and $10,000 depending on the size of the development and the scope of the study. Van Natta said he was not aware of a time they required it of a residential subdivision. Wilson said the traffic study would assess the level of service. If there were impacts that would decrease that level of service the traffic study would identify mitigation, i.e. road improvements or stop signs. ROLL CALL (AMENDMENT) The motion failed with 2, Brechel and Spooner in favor and 4 opposed. BOARD DISCUSSION Rice suggested the City take a serious look at the roads to make sure there was adequate egress and ingress. Wilson said the primary concern was fire access and this met the fire departments need for a secondary access. Rice wanted to make sure there was forethought and long term planning, that went into where the traffic would go and if it would be adequate. Wilson noted that when she prepared the transmittal to the city council she would make sure to include that specific language regarding the roads. Van Natta noted concern for substandard roads in the future. He thought they needed to figure out some way to set aside a fund and felt it was not wise to require the developer to rebuild the road to a higher standard. Brechel agreed the developer shouldn't have to improve the roads, but added that if the density weren't so severe a traffic study might not be made. Van Natta said there must be a market for what he's proposing. Wilson said there was a bigger market than people estimated, especially for young families. She said affordability was a factor. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of September 10, 2002 Page 7 Anderson asked and Mr. Owens answered that the townhouse dwellings would generally be owner occupied. ROLL CALL The motion tied with 3 in favor and 3 in opposition, with Spooner, Anderson and Brechel voting in opposition and --At rose r, Rice and Johnson voting in favor. WEST VIEW ESTATES / A request by Mark Owens, dba Owl Corporation / LBO OWL CORPORATION Limited Partnership for an initial zoning designation of R-3 ANNEXATION AND INITIAL on 48 acres and RA-1 on 10 acres upon annexation to the ZONING city of Kalispell on property located at the northeast corner of Stillwater Road and West Reserve Drive. WEST VIEW ESTATES A request by Mark Owens, dba Owl Corporation, for SUBDIVISON PRELIMINARY preliminary plat approval of West View Estates, a 128-lot PLAT residential subdivision located on the northeast corner of Stillwater Road and West Reserve Drive. STAFF REPORTS Narda Wilson, of the Tri-City Planning Office, gave a #KA-02-7A AND #KPP-02- presentation of staff reports KA-02-7A, a request for 4A annexation and initial zoning, and KPP-02-4A, preliminary plat for a 128 lot residential subdivision on approximately 58 acres in the northwest part of Kalispell. This property is proposed for annexation and assignment of initial zoning concurrently with consideration of this preliminary plat. The residential component of the subdivision contains 127 single-family residential lots on approximately 48 acres that would be developed in three phases. One 10-acre parcel would be created and developed at a later date with duplex, townhouses or multi -family homes. The ten acre parcel would be generally located in the southwestern portion of the site, while the 48 acres of single-family residential homes would be developed on the northern two thirds of the site as well as the area to the east that borders Stillwater Estates Subdivision. One of the policy statements in the Master Plan document for the West View Estates Development Plan, Phase I of the subdivision would have to be substantially complete prior to the initiation of construction of the high - density residential component of the development. Staff reviewed the findings of fact and made two recommendations of approval, one recommending the initial zoning of R-3 and RA-1 upon annexation to the city and another for the preliminary plat subject to conditions. APPLICANT/AGENCIES Mark Owens declined to speak but was available for questions. PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened to those who wished to speak. PROPONENTS No one wished to speak. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of September 10, 2002 Page 8 OPPONENTS Robert Dregny, 1485 W. Reserve, pointed out the number of gravel pits and gravel trucks on Stillwater Road. He noted the proposed high school to the south and had concerns for high density near the school. He also noted concerns about the park issue, stating that $8,000 would buy the kids nothing. He asked where the thought of future was and noted dinky houses and more traffic. He said don't do it. Kim Davis, 1230 Rhodes Draw, asked the board to consider appropriate density for the property. He noted the history of the West Valley Neighborhood Plan, where the property was originally located within those boundaries. He asked the board to consider it a transition piece of property, not a high - density area. He said they had water quality issues. He noted that West Reserve doesn't have a shoulder. He said even though the property was pulled out of the West Valley Neighborhood' Plan it was not pulled out of the West Valley School District 'and he wanted them to consider the traffic and kids that ride bikes. Rod Osler, 1425 W. Reserve, stated he was not opposed to development, but was opposed to the density being considered. He said the West Valley School District was not capable of handling more students. He said there, would be significant impacts and they should strongly consider those impacts. Rod Dresbach, 2490 Farm to Market, said he represented two entities as --Chairman of the West Valley Neighborhood Plan and Chief of West Valley Fire and Rescue. He stated the density did not fit the area. He called foul on the fire department status for the City of Kalispell being able to protect them. He said it was proposed to tap into the water system at Stillwater Estates, which did not meet uniform fire codes for water. He said it did meet flow, but the system didn't have a back up. He said a corner of Section 36 still didn't have fire protection and this was another mile out. He said the City couldn't provide service right now. If there is a grass fire the City does not have a tender to fight the fire. Nancy Osler, 1425 W. Reserve, stated her concerns for this proposal were just as strong as the people who came before them. She noted the amount of trucks, along with traffic increases. She said the road in the winter was extremely dangerous. She had concerns for the safety of the kids on the road and didn't feel it could handle the traffic. She was opposed to the density and noted the open land surrounding it. She didn't think it made sense for the overview of the community. She asked them to look into it some more and do a study or survey. UEd Warner, 132 E. Bowman, thought the lot sizes should be larger. He said there were safety issues, like no place to walk Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of September 10, 2002 Page 9 along West Reserve Drive and tons of trucks and cars everyday. He thought it would be nice if they could really (� think and concentrate on the impacts. No one else wished to speak and the public hearing was closed. MOTION Brechel moved and Rice seconded to adopt staff report KA- 02-7A as findings of fact and forward a recommendation to the Kalispell City Council that the initial zoning for this property should be R-3, Residential, on approximately 48 acres and RA-1, Low -Density Residential on approximately 10 acres as proposed and indicated on the attached vicinity map upon annexation to the city. BOARD DISCUSSION Van Natta noted the same concerns for this subdivision as the previous one. Johnson asked if the high school was a done deal and Wilson said they were making annual payments to the State but that a bond for it construction would have to be approved by the voters. Brechel asked and Owens answered that the development progress depended on the dynamics and market in the Valley. He said they would start on Phase I in 2003 and development beyond that would depend on what the market told them. Brechel asked and Owens clarified the proposed park would be developed near the center of the subdivision. There was a brief discussion regarding the different school district boundaries. Wilson concluded that she would check it before sending the planning board recommendation on to the city council and find out how the students would be handled or accommodated. ROLL CALL ON INITIAL The motion passed with 5 in favor and 1, Johnson, opposed ZONING on a roll call vote. MOTION Brechel moved and Spooner seconded to adopt staff report KPP-02-4A as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the preliminary plat be approved subject to 17 staff recommended conditions. BOARD DISCUSSION Brechel stated that problems were mitigated since the first time and Mr- Owens changed the plat to satisfy those concerns. He thought the lots were a good size along the ll border and would vote in favor of this. �J Rice thought the roads were an issue and would have to be dealt with. He thought it a good place for the density with Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of September 10, 2002 Page 10 sewer and water already there and a school being developed across the street. He said it made sense. Anderson said that looking ahead to the long term she agreed the growth had to happen. She said with the high school going out there, what better place to have your kids in close proximity. She agreed roads were an issue, but said they have been. She thought having them on city sewer was fax better than a septic and would vote for this. Spooner noted that the majority of schools were located within heavily. dense residential areas and thought for some people it could be a benefit. Van Natta said that West Reserve was on the State secondary system and thought the priority had to get the attention of the state and county commissioners. He said there was a mechanism for financing a road and thought the road was under consideration with all the construction and development. He noted concern for the gravel pits but was not inclined to deny the subdivision. He thought it was important to get any development they could on city sewer. He thought the city was going to deal with the fire station situation relatively soon and said he understood the concerns of the surrounding fire districts. He said if the water system . in Stillwater Estates couldn't meet fire requirements thin the developer was going to have to run water from the City water main to the subdivision. Johnson thought Mr. Dresbach made some good points on fire protection and thought the City couldn't provide service at this point. He said it could become a tax burden. He thought it was well accepted to have high -density areas available because not everyone could afford $80,000 for a lot and $200,000 for a home, however, the public was saying they didn't want it to the north, south, east or west of town. He said density that provided services for sewer and water was the only answer they had. ROLL CALL The motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. OLD BUSINESS No old business was presented. NEW BUSINESS Wilson said she included a resolution in the packet and a copy of the memo from the City Attorney citing reasons for permanent status of the Kalispell City Planning Board. She said they were officially certified and those documents were on file in the planning office. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of September 10, 2002 Page 11 There was a brief discussion regarding the Attorney General's Opinion on SB 97 / Growth Policies. Wilson said it was her understanding the comment period had been extended to September 19th. She included a copy of the draft opinion in their packet so -they would be well informed of the issues. Brechel asked if it was subject to appeal and Wilson said no that it would have the effect of law, unless it goes further and is decided by the court. She noted a work session with the Council on September 3=d and said the City Attorney advised that until a final opinion was reached they should proceed with the policy used over the last year and continue to process applications. Van Natta asked for clarification regarding annexation and Wilson explained that annexation was not an issue, but rezoning which is part of the annexation process in Kalispell is an issue. Wilson reported that every year the board adopts a work program outlining important issues. A high priority for the Kalispell City Planning Board Annual Work Program FY 2002 / 2003 was to continue to update the Kalispell City Growth Policy. She explained the documents three sections and the issues associated. The board concluded they would hold a work session on October lst, from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. and Wilson said she would call to confirm the space. She said she would send a memo on September 24th. A joint meeting between planning board and city council was discussed for October 15th and it was concluded they would discuss it further at their work session. Johnson noted that the county planning board was going through the same process and invited all of them to sit in on their meetings. He said they would like the board's input and they foresee a joint meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:05 p.m. The next meeting of. the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission will be held on Tuesday, October 8, 2002. Ron Van Natta, Chairman of the Board I APPROVED as submitted correcte /02 �'o Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of September 10, 2002 Page 12