Loading...
12-17-02 Special Meeting�J KALISPELL CITY PLANNING BOARD & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING DECEMBER 17, 2002 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL The 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: Bill Rice, Jean Johnson, Ron Van Natta, Mark Brechel, George Taylor and Jim Atkinson. Sue Ellyn Anderson had an excused absence. Narda Wilson represented the Tri-City Planning Office. There were approximately 60 people in the audience. President Van Natta gave some opening comments regarding the growth policy area stating that there are three boundaries. The planning jurisdiction boundaries are the city limit, the potential utility service area is where the city anticipates providing services, i.e. water and/ or sewer over the next 20 years. The boundary is based upon a recent study adopted by the City of Kalispell which is titled the Water, Sewer and Storm Drainage Systems Facility Plan dated July 2002. The farthest boundary is the growth policy area boundary, the previous city -county planning jurisdiction boundary and upon which the resource document, or Appendix A, Resources and Analysis Section, of the growth policy is based. Appendix A has the populiation information, demographics, floodplain and other data for the area. On the future land use map, the area inside the potential utility service area and outside the city limits indicates a use that would be anticipated by the City of Kalispell should utilities be provided to the property and the property annexed. Van Natta went over the process and review schedule and noted they were trying to get the plan completed by the end of the year so that current board members could see it through so they had planned a special meeting for December 30+h and then a work session with the Kalispell City Council. The Kalispell City Council will also hold a public hearing. DRAFT KALISPELL Draft Kalispell Growth Policy - 2020 outlining issues, goals, GROWTH POLICY policies and recommendations on various development related issues. PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened to those who wished to speak on the issue. PUBLIC COMMENT Bill Lincoln, 203 Lakeshore Dr., read from a letter, which he submitted for the record. Mr. Lincoln owns 160 acres encompassing a portion of Conrad Drive, bordering a proposed route for the La Salle extension. He did not agree with the designation on the current plan and asked that it be Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of December 17, 2002 Page 1 altered to reflect previous actions of the city -county planning board. He gave a brief history of those actions and asked that the new growth plan allow for commercial development consistent with previous recommendations to provide a safer traffic flow for the residential portions of Conrad Drive. John .Schwarz spoke on behalf of several groups, most importantly the vision for his three sons, as an employer and also as a board member of the Flathead Business Industry Association. He expressed concern about what appeared to be a document that represented an inventory not a plan. He noted the lack of commercial development space within the planned area. He said most of the commercial development that has occurred was not master planned as commercial in the 1986 plan. He felt the severe lack of available real estate for commercial development would cause adverse impacts to the growth of Kalispell. He had a strong concern for the water, the value and the quality of life in the valley. He said if we continue to not plan for infrastructure or provide location we continue to allow commercial development to happen outside of the plan. He felt it was important to identify growth areas and growth corridors and provide location for business and commercial development. Darlene Jump-Rauthe, 687 Scenic Dr., objected to the Growth Policy as presented. She said there was not adequate time for the general public to make an informed decision and offer written comments. She felt they needed more than one week and said she would be submitting a letter. Gordon Perrie, 420 Lake Hills Ln., represented a group that formed and filed suit against the City. He submitted into record all of the articles and engineers' information regarding that suit. He was not against growth, but agreed with Schwarz, they needed to plan. He said we needed smart, organized planning so it worked to the benefit all the people in the valley, not just special interests. He stated there were a number of people outside the city who were interested in slowing down development and getting things organized. He said he disagreed with the map on the change from industrial to commercial and believed there was more need for light industrial use than there was for commercial. John Hirschfelder, 420 Mountain View Dr., disagreed with the plan. He said it was going way too fast and one week for written comments was short. Tying to have it adopted by December 30th worried him and he thought a number of issues needed to be addressed. Susie Burch, 835 1st Ave. E., incoming board Chair of the Kalispell Chamber of Commerce thanked them for their Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of December 17, 2002 Page 2 work, that it was important. She said the Chamber was following their progress closely and would have written comments by the 24th. Jesse Hopkins, 720 3rd Ave. W., Kalispell Volunteer Fire Department, wondered what the service plan would be for fire and emergencies. Jean Agather, 540 6th Ave. E., stated she was speaking personally and as a member of the Flathead Business Industry Association. She addressed the consideration and designation of target development areas. She thought the language was way too restrictive. She commented on the flexibility of the amending process and asked they leave the ability to amend in the hands of capable future planning boards and city council. She agreed they should not hurry the public process. She asked they slow down and let the public be involved. Rodney Dresbach, 2490 Farm to Market Rd., agreed the process was going to fast. He felt it was being a ramrod job and made him very suspicious to the overall plan, policy, the city council, and long range plans. He did not see eye to eye with the City on a number of issues and said a lot of things in the Growth Policy were a farce, from the fire service to sewer extensions. He said they talked about extending sewers in the Growth Policy, but were saying the plant would be maxed out in five years. With talk about more growth he thought they were looking at revenue and said it was more of a land grab and a moneymaker for the city. Robert Harris, 853 Highland Dr., stated concern for the emphasis on high density, which he felt was contrary to the interest of the citizens, particularly those in the agricultural industry. His primary concern was they were restricting property rights by taking them out of certain use categories. He said the density issue strikes against the historical trend in Montana to have a few acres of our own. He knew that encouraged sprawl, but to exclude large areas was contrary to what they have been doing up to this point. David Greer, 2250 Hwy 93 N., spoke on behalf of DNRC, but also had comments because he read through the entire draft. Under the economy section, more reference to health care was missing. He noted Kalispell Regional Medical Center employed over 1,300 people and there was no reference to them as a regional health care center. Under transportation, he noted reference to a study done in 1993 and thought it was outdated. He pointed out that new signals were installed at the intersection of Main and Idaho, and they synchronized all the signals on Main Street. He said they missed the West -side By Pass and thought it was important Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of December 17, 2002 Page 3 to emphasize. He noted East Meridian Road should be a two-way street, and Commons Way should be referenced as a collector. Also Heritage Way, which connects through Sunnyview and Phase V of Buffalo Commons. As for priority projects there was no reference to the West -side By Pass. He noted Four Mile Drive was continually referenced as a minor arterial, which he didn't understand. In reference to the DNRC land north of town he submitted a letter and stated their biggest request was that the pink designation extend to their 15 acres. He said their office couldn't stay much longer because the land was too valuable. Ken Kalvig, 126 Lambert Ct., echoed the comments made regarding the amendment process. He said it would guide their decisions for the next 18 years and felt they had to build flexibility into it. He said it had narrow parameters that were largely undefined as to when they could amend the document. Regarding the growth policy map, the property near the intersection of East Reserve Drive and Hwy 2 had approximately 85 acres showing as commercial. He said this is property Bucky Wolford was trying to develop and has been through four public hearings. He thought the map should reflect the approval he received for amending the map. He reminded the board that the City didn't have any legal jurisdiction unless the landowner asked for annexation. At that point the landowner would submit a request for initial zoning. He agreed there should be a PUD with it if there was a large scale development. He commented on a technical issue stating they needed to be careful with their definition of "issues". He said issues were defined as important trends, problems, opportunities and community values. He gave an example, depending on what side of the issue they were on, as issue #9 in the Natural Environment Chapter. He said if it's a smart growth advocate they would identify it as a problem, one they had to protect and preserve. If it's a developer they would say it's an important trend, an opportunity and they should rescue the farmer and allow him to sell for the development. He asked the board to take a look at the definition created for issues and make sure they weren't setting themselves up for problems. John Wagner stated he reviewed the document and saw a lot of good things. He voiced concern about having a great environment and clean water. He thought, when looking to the Growth Policy, there were certain areas, for example no new development. in the 100-year flood plain. He said they assumed that was bad because it would have adverse effects on the water, but there wasn't room to say they could develop if it was engineered correctly and if it could be shown through a study that it wouldn't have any impacts. He suggested we don't box ourselves in on specific issues by not leaving it open. He suggested looking for solutions instead. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of December 17, 2002 Page 4 U Charles Lapp, 3230 Columbia Falls Stage Rd., commented this wasn't a rush on the Growth Policy noting reference to this being it's 6th year in process. He said he comes from a family of seven and knows there won't be a consensus. He thought it should be a changing document and to have some way to amend it was important. He said the agricultural issue was important to him. Under land use goals, he didn't think it was a possibility for anyone to maintain a stable and viable agricultural industry on the local level. He noted two instances where other cities embraced conservation easements and as the years went by the city grew around them. One instance was a 100-acre dairy farm where the city grew all around it. He said we had to be careful when talking about agricultural land and conservation easements, especially when close to the city and infrastructure. He thought we should allow the farmers to develop the land that was close in. He said he would submit written comments. Randy Ogle, 20 Woodland Ave., focused on section 10 of the Growth Policy regarding the extension of Woodland Avenue to Idaho Street. He said they have been fighting the issue for over 30 years and asked the board to look at the section and amend it by deleting the reference as a second priority project. He also commented on section 8 regarding traffic diversion from the downtown. He noted the east side as one of the primary historic areas in town. He felt the development of a connector would be devastating to the Woodland Park area, which he referred to as a jewel for the city and county residents. He said the extension of Woodland Avenue would become a defacto bypass and create a hazard. He said people cross the road daily throughout the year to go to Woodland Park and felt the increase in traffic would increase the traffic risks. He thought there would also be a serious problem at the Conrad Drive and Woodland Drive intersection. He said they already had traffic pressures from the two one-way streets, which people use as a bypass, but they had further pressure because lst Avenue East was reduced from four to two lanes. He asked the board to be cognizant of the traffic concerns. He thought the primary reason to extend Woodland to Idaho was to move traffic and the people using the street would be traveling from Whitefish to Lakeside. Those people benefiting would be outside the city of Kalispell and this would impact city taxpayers and city residents to benefit non -city taxpayers and non -city residents. Mr. Ogle submitted his letter and that of his neighbor, Mr. James Vidal, for the record. Bill Goodman, 50 2nd St. E., thanked them for their hard work. He said this was wishful thinking for the future and when these thoughts became reality he came into play as a Realtor. He submitted a letter containing data from the Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of December 17, 2002 Page 5 Multiple Listing Service (MLS), and noted out of 3,746 listings there were 4 industrial listings in the Kalispell area. He expressed concern for the 65 acres that were taken out of industrial usage and put into commercial at the Glacier Mall site. He urged the board to look at that area and reconsider it as light industrial. He thought changing it to commercial wouldn't serve the community, but only served the developer. Russ Crowder, 2865 Lower Lost Prairie Rd., said he was asked by the President of his board to attend tonight's meeting and give a report to the county planning board on the proceedings. He said his comments were not representative of the county planning board, but he would be making recommendations to them and possibly the county commission. He was concerned they were planning a Growth Policy that would apply outside of the jurisdictional boundaries of the city limits and he wanted to see changes made to the document that would reflect lawful jurisdiction of the Kalispell city planning board and city council. He noted two specific changes; page 3, 4th paragraph, the growth policy plan map. He would add, within the Kalispell City limits or the lawful Kalispell planning jurisdiction at the time of the plans adoption. On page 4, under administration, cooperation between the city and county is critical. He agreed and asked to strike the sentence, this plan may extend up to 4.5 miles beyond city limits. His reason was the plan should be specific to the area at the time of adoption. Wilson noted that Mr. Crowder had an outdated copy of the draft policy. Crowder asked they keep in mind they were not re -writing a new Master Plan. He said the Growth Policy was a very regulatory document and from a county standpoint there were many things that were way too restrictive to county property owners. He said they really needed to look at chapter 2, environmental considerations. He thought any individual wanting to find a lawful reason to stop any development would find one there. He said he would recommend the jurisdiction of this plan be limited to the planning jurisdiction at the time. He said the county was in the process of writing a growth policy and many of the areas outside of the city limits the county planning board would be addressing. He said the county residents have representation on that board and they don't have it before the city board or the city council. He said he would make that recommendation unless someone could give him specific reference in the MCA's as to where the city board would have the statutory authority to prepare a growth policy outside of their jurisdictional area. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of December 17, 2002 Page 6 O Bruce Measure, 635 5th St. E., reiterated Mr. Ogle's comments regarding the extension of 7th Street EN through Woodland Avenue. He said it was the only handicap and pedestrian access to Woodland Park and the Conrad Mansion. He felt Heritage Park would be severely disrupted as well. He added that Woodland Avenue was one of the only arterial routes through Kalispell that met the policy goal of discouraging routing heavy traffic through pedestrian areas. He discouraged the allowance of the extension. Ted Dykstra Jr., 2109 Harlequin, spoke on behalf of Northwestern Montana Association of Realtors as their President-elect. He said they felt the issue needed to be addressed in an expedient manner and would like to see a resolution of some sort. He said the NMAR board would offer written comments by the 24th. Diane Conradi, Citizens For a Better Flathead, 35 4th St. W., thanked the board for their hard work. She clarified what Mr. Crowder referred to as a regulatory document. She understood it as a vision and a planning document. She said the regulations and the map designate specific ways the plan would look. The zoning regulations, design standards and subdivision regulations also carry out the plan. She didn't think the Growth Policy was a regulatory document, but thought the regulations and the zoning were required to carry out the Growth Policy. She agreed with Mr. Kalvig that the policy lacks an amendment process, which was part of the trouble with Glacier Mall and the Wolford project. She thought the purpose of the Growth Policy was to provide a long-term vision . for growth of the community and it was a good idea to review it every 5 years. She thought that was a problem in the existing plan and it was amended willy-nilly. She said they had a history of this in Flathead county, which resulted in at least one Supreme Court case. She said it was important the zoning regulations follow the Growth Policy and not be amended willy-nilly. She said Whitefish and Bozeman had specific provisions for when it could be amended and that provides predictability and stability. While chairing Leadership Flathead they discussed growth and talked about impacts and options. She said there was a tremendous amount of common ground, they all valued recreational opportunities and quality of life. The most prominent concern about growth was traffic. She pointed out that the quality of life, including recreational amenities, was a tremendous economic asset. She used the flood plain as, an example when looking at policies that restrict development. She said they were not only looking at preserving water quality but also preserving the quality of life and some aspects that were the drivers of our economy. She noted the number one source of income growth in our economy was non -earned income and the second was Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of December 17, 2002 Page 7 services and professional. She said we were bringing people and keeping people because of our quality of life. She spoke to the sections that dealt with a healthy downtown, which offered significant economic attributes. She said traffic was identified as the number one impact from growth. As for flood plain development, wildlife and water quality issues, she thought there were tools to balance community needs with what private landowners needed. She said our environment equals dollars. She would submit written comments. Chris Kukulski stated his comments were not in reference to the document but to clarify the resolution. He submitted comments for the record noting specifically that the City Council's consideration to schedule a public hearing was not in an attempt to pre-empt the Planning Board and their process. He stated the meeting was to accept public comment so the Council could decide whether they were likely to adopt the Growth Policy or set aside additional time for workshops. He felt it was incorrect to say the City was fast -tracking the project because it was essential they had a Growth Policy in place. He said if the planning board didn't pass the Growth Policy on to the City Council by December 30th the public hearing before the Council would be postponed. Rose Schwennesen, representing the Flathead Lakers, stated they were a non-profit organization working for clean water and healthy eco systems. They appreciated the recognition given to the value of rivers, streams and shallow ground water, which contributed to our quality of life and the beauty of Flathead Lake. The new Growth Policy allowed an opportunity to safeguard important resources. She said the Flathead Lakers supported the vision statement and language of the draft Growth Policy that promoted locating new development in areas where existing public services and infrastructure were available. They were concerned with areas designated as commercial on the map that did not implement that vision. The Flathead Lakers supported the water quality goals, policies, and recommendations, in particular recommendations 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7. They suggested additional information about water resources, goals and policies be incorporated in the Growth Policy. Recommendations included issues regarding the shallow aquifer connected to the Flathead River as vulnerable to contamination by human activities. They also suggested adding, under goals, protected wetland and riparian areas were valuable assets and played an important role in flood protection, maintaining surface and ground water quality and providing wildlife habitat. They suggested adding in the policies section, chapter 7, #3, the words wetlands, riparian areas, and shallow ground water areas before it continued on Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of December 17, 2002 Page 8 to say, and in steep slopes, etc. To incorporate into the subdivision regulations, set backs from wetlands and riparian areas to avoid disturbance of these areas and maintain the services they provide. Also, to work with the Flathead County to develop riparian management corridors along the Flathead, Whitefish, and Stillwater Rivers and develop design standards for this area. She submitted a letter to staff for the record. Jerry Begg, 220 Woodland Ave., stated he received a copy of the map and appendix. He reiterated there was no flexibility in the plan or method to revise the document. He wasn't sure every 5 years was right. He disagreed with the City Manager and thought they were fast tracking. He hoped the Legislature would meet in the next months and change the entire scope of what they were looking at tonight. He was disturbed by the thousands of landowners who were effected by the map and weren't here tonight. He said they were in the dark about what could happen to their property. He thought it was unfair. He grew up with logging families and said that industry had been destroyed through lawsuits. He thought it was a mistake to include the 65 page resource and analysis section as part of the policy. He asked for the board's consideration in not bringing it in as a resource document. He thought the attorneys would hang their hat on every word. He agreed to not extend Woodland Avenue. He commented on property owned by his family y on Two Mile Drive and noted it was all high density surrounding them. He said he would appreciate it if they took a drive over because to the north, south, and east of them was high density, yet on the map they were asked to be low density. He felt it went against the whole purpose of what they were looking at. Kate Hunt, 100 Riverside Rd., thought it was important the city and county worked together. She wanted to see the city made friendlier, easier to use. She said she almost got killed trying to cross the street. She wanted to see it more bike friendly, walking friendly, and just being able to get around. She said the strips that were presently on the map put you in your car and she would rather see a more walking, biking, friendlier place. She echoed the comments on clean water and visual beauty. She said when a place looks good it amounts to economic dollars and when you throw up a couple of trailers along the road it decreases the value of an area. No one else wished to speak and the public hearing was closed. The board took a 5-minute recess. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of December 17, 2002 Page 9 OLD BUSINESS I No old business was reported. NEW BUSINESS Wilson stated she would make copies of anything submitted tonight for Thursday's meeting, along with anything that came in. She said she would write a memo that bulleted the issues. Rice wondered about this being a regulatory document and Wilson stated it was not. She said it was not intended as one and someone saying it at a public hearing didn't make it so. Atkinson commented on the county planning board planning for the county area and asked if there was any provision for the meshing of plans directly around the city. Wilson said there was language in the document that talked about coordinating with the county. She thought it would be nice to sit down with the county commissioners and recognize the boundaries and the intent of the plan, and seek cooperation in implementing. it. Johnson said that had to start with the board and he didn't think it was too late. He said the county was in process and it would behoove the board to get into their ball field. He thought they were close to being done and they could go over and work with the county on a functional end. He thought they might be able to give the county some insights. Rice asked if he saw that happening as work session and Johnson said he guaranteed they would ask questions. Wilson didn't know if there was a statement in the policy document about the planning boards coming together but thought it would be a good goal statement. She said they could talk about it on Thursday. Rice asked about the color on the map comment that Jerry talked about. Wilson said Jerry could develop apartments with the urban residential designation and she talked to him about it. She told him if he wanted to do apartments they would support that, depending on inherit environmental limitations, like storm water. Rice commented that his concern was that the color on the map dictated what happened in an area and that was not the case. Wilson said if its in the city the map and plan should give guidance and be followed. Taylor asked for clarification of future meeting times and place. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of December 17, 2002 Page 10 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:50 p.m. The next meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission will be held on Tuesday, January 14, 2003. C" L Van Natta, CAlairman of the Board Debbie Willis, Recording Secretary APPROVED as ubmitted corrected: / a / /02 Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of December 17, 2002 Page 11