Loading...
01-09-01KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MEETING JANUARY 9, 2001 CALL TO ORDER AND Greg Stevens called the meeting to order at approximately 7:00 ROLL CALL p.m. Members present were: Bill Rice, Don Mann, Don Hines, Don Garberg, Rob Heinecke, Brian Sipe, Greg Stevens and Dale Pierce. Narda Wilson represented the Flathead Regional Development Office. There were approximately 42 people in the audience. SEATING OF NEW Ron Van Natta was seated as a new member. MEMBERS ELECTION OF Heinecke moved and Hines seconded to elect Greg Stevens as OFFICERS President. On a vote by acclamation the motion was unanimously approved. Pierce moved and Mann seconded to elect Don Hines as Vice President. On a vote by acclamation the motion was unanimously approved. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion by Rice and seconded by Sipe the minutes of the meeting of December 12, 2000 were unanimously approved as submitted. HENRY/CURE A conditional use permit request by Leona Henry and Joe Cude CONDITIONAL USE to allow a community residential facility for short term PERMIT residential care, for up to five children on property zoned R-3 at '120 Crestline Avenue in Kalispell. STAFF REPORT Narda Wilson, of the Flathead Regional Development Office, gave a presentation of staff report KCU-00-10, to allow a community residential facility for short term residential care (30 days or less) for up to five children between the ages of 1 to 14 years of age on property zoned R-3, Residential. This zoning district lists community residential facilities for eight or fewer people as a conditionally permitted use. This use is proposed in an existing single-family home. The home would be licensed and operated in accordance with the State of Montana Public Health Department for group homes. Staff recommended the planning board adopt staff report KCU-00-10 as findings of fact and recommended approval subject to 3 conditions. PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened to those who wished to speak on the proposal. PROPONENTS Leona Henry, 120 Crestline, said they were proposing to operate a facility for children 14 and under contracting through the State of Montana. She said they had done an evaluation of Kalispell and there was a need in the area. Henry stated they would not be changing anything and they would not need additional parking. She said everything should remain the same in the neighborhood and their house was large enough to accommodate the children. She said it would be very similar to a foster home setting, the only difference was that it would be for only 30 days. Heinecke asked and Henry answered they would be living in the home, as a family setting, as surrogate parents. OPPONENTS Dean Jellison, 116 Crestline, neighbor of the applicant, handed out a written set of conditions they wanted added to the staff report. He said they were not enthused about the project, but Montana statute provided exemption from zoning regulations for youth foster homes, which can be licensed for up to six foster children. He said Wilson indicated it was not possible for the City to impose conditions on Conditional Use Permits other than what was applicable to a residence. Jellison stated that was not true. He said the statute indicated they could not impose safety or sanitary restrictions. He said the conditions proposed were not related to safety or sanitary, but to use and community benefit. The areas of concern were parking, visiting families and officials, and landscaping. Jellison stated that he disagreed with paragraph 3 stating there would be no substantial police impact. He said 14 year olds could be wild and there was a frequent, substantial increase in theft and vandalism. He also disagreed with paragraph 4, no negative �1 impacts to neighborhood, and thought that would be accurate if supplemented by a statement at the beginning, if additional conditions requested by the neighbors are imposed and adhered to by the applicant there would be no negative impacts, etc., on the neighborhood. Stevens asked if his conditions were submitted to the staff or reviewed by the City Attorney. Jellison said no and Stevens said he had difficulty judging what was legal. His understanding of the report was that out of ordinary conditions placed on a residence were not allowed. No one else wished to speak and the public hearing was closed. MOTION Rice moved and Sipe seconded to adopt staff report KCU-00-10 as findings of fact and, based on those findings, recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the conditional use permit be granted subject to 3 conditions. BOARD DISCUSSION Garberg stated it was not a conforming use for the area and wanted to speak out against the proposal. Van Natta thought the conditions by Jellison were something in need of legal opinion. He was willing to move forward and pass it to the City Council for review. Kalispell City -County Planning Board January 9, 2001 Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 28 Stevens said they could forward the conditions to the City Attorney but he was not in favor of including them. Rice, agreed to pass them along, but not include them in the motion. ROLL CALL On a roll call vote the motion passed with 8 in favor and 1 opposed. CROSSWELL A request by Crosswell Development for a PUD at Hwy 93 and DEVELOPMENT, LLC. W. Reserve Drive for an approximately 515,000 square foot, PLANNED UNIT large scale retail development. DEVELOPMENT MOTION Hines moved and Heinecke seconded to limit public comment to 3 minutes. On a roll call vote there were 5 opposed and 4 in favor. The motion to limit public comment failed. STAFF REPORT Narda Wilson, of the Flathead Regional Development Office, gave a presentation on staff report KPUD-00-1, a zone change request by Crosswell Development for Pack and Company to allow a Planned Unit Development (PUD), which would replace the existing Domesite PUD. The PUD would function as an overlay for the B-2, General Commercial, zoning designation and would replace the previous development proposal. The new development proposal includes three large commercial pads that contain between 127,337 and 148,663 square feet located to the east of the site and five smaller commercial pads that contain between 18,000 and 24,200 square feet located along the west side for a total of approximately 513,246 square feet of commercial development. The property 'contains approximately 60 acres of land. Wilson stated it was a phase development with 8 phases, to be built over 12 years, depending on the market, and subdivided so they could be conveyed separately. There were several considerations by staff, the deviation from zoning and subdivision regulations, and the building height exceeding the maximum at 38 feet, with an additional 7 feet for rooftop mounted devices. Signs at the main entrance were proposed to be 28 feet in height, and would exceed the 200 square foot maximum. Other considerations were the provision of . open space, including landscaping and irrigation. Staff recommended approval subject to 31 conditions. PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened to those who wished to speak on the proposal. PROPONENTS Mike Fraser, Thomas, Dean, & Hoskins engineering consultant, spoke in favor of the proposal stating that the proposed PUD would give the City a definable, concrete product. They prepared a plan, which they believed would provide C� enhancement to the entrance into the City of Kalispell in consideration of the neighborhood plan across the road. The Kalispell City -County Planning Board January 9, 2001 Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 28 PUD provides public comment so it could be incorporated into the overall project. He said the project deviated significantly from the Domesite PUD by proposing less commercial area and a component for open space. He said the Domesite received a major variance for an entrance sign of 1025 square feet, plus 250 square feet of reader board. They were asking for 270 square feet per face. He said the sign would be very attractive, made of rock and timber. The overall impact of the project, in total, would be significantly less than what was approved for the Domesite. He asked for the opportunity to proceed with a quality development. Fraser stated 20% of the project was open space with color -coordinated buildings that would blend in with the area. He said that parking lot maintenance would be addressed in the covenants. Fraser asked for several modifications in the conditions; #9, 10, 11, 19, 23, 24, and 28. He stated the PUD was in conformance with the Master Plan and asked that he be allowed rebuttal testimony. Sipe asked how many jobs would be created by the project and Fraser answered that all levels of jobs and wages would be available. A good estimate would be 1,000 to 1500 for the whole site. Stevens asked why condition # 19 was changed to read, the use of retaining walls, where possible, be avoided. Fraser said they were expensive. He said there were situations where they could not be avoided, however, he didn't want it to be interpreted as being prohibited. Stan Beard, representing Crosswell Development, Houston, Texas, spoke in favor of the project stating he did not want to rehash Fraser's comments, but wanted to repeat the points that were serious to them. Condition #11, he said putting a 25-foot driveway in would eliminate some parking. He felt certain traffic flow was well taken care of. Condition. #22, he said they would like to propose a lighting plan that was comprehensive, reduce light pollution, and uses contemporary, commonly used fixtures. Condition #23 was a major issue and he passed around a sign proposal. Beard stated they could not get around the fact that their customers relied on signage, for I.D. and lifeblood, signage and parking was like the holy grail. He asked for 20 feet over the allowable square footage to make sure the larger guys got the signage they required, while smaller ones still had signage. He said signage had become more of an issue because the big boxes were set 700-800 feet off of Hwy 93. He added that they fully expected to sit down with the City and go through a comprehensive sign plan. He said they made a lot of concessions with 20 acres of green space. He respected that this was a big entrance into Kalispell, but his back was against the wall. Blair Warehime, Home Depot site coordinator, West Covina, California, emphasized the north side parking and said they Kalispell City -County Planning Board January 9, 2001 Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 28 knew about circulation in their driveways. He said they required developers to construct the parking lot a certain way, wider than normal with larger isle ways. His said this plan met -- geometric requirements. Signage was a major issue. He passed out a colored illustration of the store and .said that scale was of serious importance, it had to fit the building in height and front elevations. He also noted the building set back from Hwy 93 900-1000 feet and they considered the speed of the highway. Signage was consistent throughout their stores, as was lighting. To keep maintenance down they don't have different fixtures on different sites. Van Natta asked and Warehime answered that lighting would be consistent in the entire parking lot. Stevens asked and Warehime answered that Home Depot did an extensive study on parking ratios and he believed the parking would meet peak time usage. Hines noted that Home Depot was the largest single purchaser of Plum Creek products. Mr. Warehime could not confirm that. Jim Lynch, 430 Lake Hills Lane, President of Pack and Company, said he reviewed the information of Thomas, Dean and Hoskins and thought it was a good change from the current use of the property and a far cry from the gravel pit. He said he was pleased to see a project like this with Columbia Falls Aluminum cut backs and the closing of mills. He thought it would provide increased taxes for schools, additional jobs, including construction jobs during the process of building and for many years after. He said it was a welcome change and a tremendous benefit. Jay Wentz, La Jolla, California, with Hamstead Partners development team, lend general support for the project. He thought it gave the City and County an opportunity for development standards with traffic and building design as the northern corridor experienced growth. He understood there were issues left to discuss. Looking ahead, he believed it was good for the area and urged the board to consider the long- term impacts of not only the development but the technology park across the street. Russ Crowder, 2860 Lower Lost Prairie, represented Montanans for Property Rights. He said the north was heavily residential and this project, if approved, would provide easy shopping and access to the residents now and in the future. He said it was a great benefit to keep residents from having to travel great distances and it prevented sprawl. He thought it r represented smart growth. He said the project would increase the tax base and help resolve and lower taxes for citizens. He asked the board to approve the project with the recommended Kalispell City -County Planning Board January 9, 2001 Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 28 amendments made by the engineering consultants. Bill Goodman, 50 2nd Street East, said he was not making --- money on the project and he didn't live next to it. The issue, he said, was that it was an appropriate use for the location and it made more sense than all the rest. He said it had good transportation access, it's closer to the core with increasing density and he supported it. Tim Prince, 475 Cayuse Lane, business owner and resident, supported the project saying it was a reasonable use of the property and a definite improvement. There was obviously a need to fuel economic growth and, without question, when you can get goods at a lower price it begins the recycling process of money. He said he had concerns about the lighting. He said he could appreciate the importance of lighting and didn't think it should be a blockbuster, but two, 20 square foot excesses in the big sky area, he thought Flathead Valley could spare that. He said the context of the whole was important, for example, glaring or muted lights. He didn't think it should be an eye stopper, but done in good taste. OPPONENTS Mayre Flowers, Citizens For A Better Flathead, spoke neutrally. She thought it was unfortunate that they were trying to pit community members against each other and suggested as the community grew, that a process that preceded the public hearing to provide informal dialog was necessary, like an open house for the public by the developer. She said she did not have detailed public comment and was not taking a position, because information was lacking, but said she was following the project closely and would be coming to the City Council with additional comments. She was encouraged this was being brought forth as a PUD as it authored the ability to provide clear detail, but needed tightening up. She said some items had been detailed and others needed to be clarified; lighting and signs being proposed, etc. She felt it was important the City and MDOT work together and recommended a cumulative study on State land with specific comments in regard to infrastructure, water and sewer and traffic. She thought that information needed to be brought to the public so they could comment as well. In reference to condition #3, a more comprehensive storm water plan for the area was needed. She believed condition #4 was inadequate to proceed with economic impacts, they needed to look at studies that look at the job shifting and retail shifting that takes place when a large retail facility comes into a community, which would require an analysis of economic impact to existing businesses. She quoted statistics of similar local businesses, which summarized as a total of 132 million dollars in sales, having 742 workers with annual wages of 21,700 dollars. She said these were significant economic figures for the Valley and it was important they were brought up and looked at. Flowers stated that Kalispell City -County Planning Board January 9, 2001 Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 28 clearly a large scale, big box retail development, needed to be looked at for the nature of shifting brought about. She said there were no comparisons of existing retail space to ' population. For example, the large, retail shopping on the outskirts of Evergreen, would it accommodate retail expansion of the valley. She said more extensive information needed to be provided to the public. Dale Luhman, 169 Trailridge, spoke against the proposal stating reasons of traffic congestion, Hwy 93 impacts, dust pollution, noise pollution and the negative impacts of quality of life. He said the current traffic figures would increase, approaching 50,000 cars on average daily. He said it was the most congested intersection of the state and peak times seemed to be getting worse. He added that a retail center would suggest a lot of congestion from 8 am to 10 pm. He was also concerned about the proposed building height, the lack of information to the public and he expected all impacts to be identified relating to MDOT and Hwy 93. He said that without knowing what the changes were this was all premature. He argued that visually, with thousands of parking spaces and box stores, a gravel pit looked better with a view of the Swan Range. He added that non-commercial zoning would make a rough transition. He was concerned about effects on water, hazardous waste, and ground water contamination. He commented on the air relating to traffic and wondered what the measurements would be to meet clean air standards. In relation to condition #4 he stated adverse impacts of increased traffic, diminished property values, poorer quality of life, traffic delays, pollution, and noise. He said there was not enough information available to the public and his biggest dilemma was how to protect the neighborhood. He urged the planning board to solicit more information about water, sewer and traffic impacts. Corina Weldenbach stated the development would change the north side of town and she didn't like it. She said there were old, abandoned box stores in town they could use and asked what would happen to the open space, where you can see the mountains, when huge stores and huge signs go in. She said building stores so far from Kalispell made it a less walk -able city, similar to Evergreen, which was not beautiful. She said it made her sad and other people had economic interests. She asked the board to look at the bigger picture and take a more personal interest, suggesting they go up to Lone Pine and look out on valley. She asked they imagine what it would be like if it was filled with buildings.. She thought it was sprawl. If the project was approved she asked for 3 things; they extend the bike path into Kalispell, so it's accessible through human run transportation, they make the buildings as low as existing zoning, and they require that signs do not block the scenery. Kalispell City -County Planning Board January 9, 2001 Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 28 No one else wished to speak and the public hearing was closed. (� MOTION (MAIN) Mann moved and Heinecke seconded to adopt staff report KPUD-00-1 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the PUD overlay be approved subject to 31 conditions as recommended by staff. MOTION (AMENDED) Sipe moved and Hines seconded to delete "and the city of Kalispell" from condition #9. BOARD DISCUSSION Stevens said he was trying to avoid overlapping jurisdictions and suggested a single point of contact. Van Natta said they may have to deal with both if both are involved. It was pointed out that MDOT signed permits and reviewed traffic studies. Garberg spoke against the motion stating the City of Kalispell was represented by the council and the State governed itself. Van Natta suggested there may be aspects at the City level that they were not aware of. He thought the State had primary jurisdiction but the City was involved. Mann said the City was involved because of the impacts of DNRC across the street for things such as streetlights and he thought the City should be involved in the discussion. ROLL CALL On a roll call vote the motion failed with 4 in favor and 5 against. MOTION (AMENDED) Garberg moved and Sipe seconded to amend condition # 10 to read, "subject to recommendation of the traffic impact study". BOARD DISCUSSION Van Natta thought MDOT had the final call. Stevens agreed and said the concern was that they were asking for a comprehensive study and then, in the next condition, asking for an access to be eliminated before the State and City studied the access. He thought it was premature. ROLL CALL On a roll call vote the motion passed with 8 in favor and 1 opposed. MOTION (AMENDED) Rice moved and Mann seconded to strike condition # 11. BOARD DISCUSSION Heinecke said he didn't like the idea of the long traffic isles, if you miss a spot you have to drive all the way around. He liked the idea of having a mid connector, but was not married to the idea. Mann thought the developers had more experience in developing parking lots than the planning board and thought they should be able to do what they want. Kalispell City -County Planning Board January 9, 2001 Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 28 ROLL CALL On a roll call vote the motion passed with 8 in favor and 1 opposed. MOTION (AMENDED) Hines moved and Pierce seconded to amend condition # 19 to read, the use of retaining walls in excess of 4 feet tall be avoided "where possible". BOARD DISCUSSION Rice asked what they would use for retaining walls and Fraser answered they were considering a keystone block. Rice suggested they add decorative retaining walls so it was not a concrete wall. Fraser asked if they could leave that to the designers and developers to work out. ROLL CALL On a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously. MOTION (AMENDED) Heinecke moved and Mann seconded to strike condition #22. BOARD DISCUSSION Van Natta thought it didn't need to be decorative, but needed to be downward directed lighting opposed to skyward lighting. ROLL CALL On a roll call vote the motion failed with 3 in favor and 6 opposed. MOTION (AMENDED) Sipe moved and Garberg seconded to amend condition #22 to read "standard, downward directed lighting". BOARD DISCUSSION Stevens asked if Wilson wanted to include any other language and she said no, it was fine. Heinecke agreed. Garberg mentioned that Mr. Prince asked for an adjustment of the lighting.. He asked if it met with the standards of the corporation and Fraser said it would work. ROLL CALL On a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously. BOARD DISCUSSION Beard requested the board consider a variance, up to 270 square feet, and 28' in height at the property boundary for their pylon signs. Stevens concluded that they were talking about legalized, spot zoning, to take a particular area and design it. In this case, he said, unlike a B-2 they have a total plan. To make that plan work it requires the extra footage on the sign. To make the PUD conform to the standard zoning maybe those sign regulations are appropriate, where they might not be for a B-2. He said they were talking about between a 20 and 70 square foot difference. Wilson called upon P.J. Sorenson for clarification. Sorenson stated it was not accurate to say an extra 20 feet. He said _ zoning ordinance stated, for every zone except general Jresidential there is a table for freestanding signs with limits on the height and amount of square footage per face based on the Kalispell City -County Planning Board January 9, 2001 Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 28 distance from the right of way. Based on the proposal from the developers they would be at the right-of-way line. Sorenson said the right-of-way line was limited to 15 feet in height and -- 60 square feet per sign face. With the comprehensive plan they could increase it to 75 square feet per sign face. He said they were really talking about an extra 200 square feet per face, which was 3 1/2 times larger than what should be allowed. He said that if they moved the sign back 51 feet from the right of way, instead of right at the line, they could say 28 feet is the maximum allowed and 200 or with the comprehensive plan, 250 square feet is allowed. Stevens asked if there was something objectionable about the size of their signs and asked Sorenson to cut to the chase. He said that what the regulations said was irrelevant because it was a PUD. Sorenson said if they wanted a good default there were PUD provisions in the sign ordinance. He said it specifically limits it to one freestanding or wall sign per developed use with a limit of 24 square feet per sign and 6 feet above natural grade. He said the general provisions of the B-2 zone provided for shopping centers and lots containing multiple businesses. He added that sign area calculations were based on the building's frontage. With a shopping center you multiply the frontage by 3.5 for the first 200 feet and 1.5 after that. Stevens asked how the Valley Dome got such a large sign and Wilson stated that staff recommended against it. She said the reason it was finally granted was because the applicants were able to convince the City Council that because of the nature of the business and advertising events like hockey games and concerts, a large, animated sign was something they needed. She also pointed out that PUD regulations stated that a deviation from the zoning should serve some public interest or provide some mitigation and it was staffs position that a larger sign did not serve the public interest it merely served the interest of the applicant. She didn't think the additional advertising was necessary. Garberg pointed out that it was stated that the sign was critical to the project. Sorenson compared other signs in the County such as Wal Mart; total sign area 432 square feet for the entire property and said Kmart, ShopKo, and Office Max were the same way. Stevens said it was an aesthetic matter and there was a tremendous advantage to having a readable sign. He said we _\ were all in it together. Wilson said the point came up because there were inaccuracies Kalispell City -County Planning Board January 9, 2001 Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 28 in saying it was 20 feet beyond what would otherwise be allowed, when actually it was much more. -J Stevens said it did not comply with the B-2 Zoning Regulations. Hines said it could be eliminated by taking Mountain View Plaza off the top and leaving the various store locations the same size. Wilson noted they were missing the point. A 28 foot height and 250 square foot sign would only be allowed with a 51 foot set back. As proposed at the property boundary there would be a 15 foot height limit and a 75 square foot sign, so it was not a 20 square foot deviation, it was a 200 square foot deviation. Sipe said the stores were 20 feet below ground level and traffic may not be able to see the stores. Stevens said if they could not demonstrate a health, safety or general welfare reason to not let the developer go ahead with the sign they thought would work than he was not interested in talking about it anymore. Rice disagreed. He thought they were being short sighted and aesthetically it was too large of a sign. He thought it should comply with the Kalispell City Ordinance for signage. He said everyone would know where Home Depot was and we didn't l need big signs cluttering up the highway corridor to point out where the stores were. He thought it should be kept as stated in the original proposal. Garberg said that was well and good but they were dealing with a different set of circumstances. This was a special project with stop gaps and approvals to make sure it was aesthetically pleasing down the road. He said they knew what they needed to make it work with parking lots and signage and the board members were not experts. He thought it was a battle for the architectural committees and the City Council down the road. He felt they should give the developer the latitude to make a proposal for what they wanted to do. Rice disagreed saying whether or not they had a large sign didn't compare to the technicality of traffic in the parking lot. Van Natta was concerned that a pylon sign on the property line would be in the vision of people trying to get on and off the road. He said it might effect traffic vision because it came all the way to the ground. He wondered if it was possible to move it back some and still allow up to 200 square feet. He thought they could have some latitude, since it was a PUD with multiple tenants, to have something additional. Kalispell City -County Planning Board January 9, 2001 Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 28 Beard said their property line and right of way was 41 feet from the road. He said he would go 51 feet from the road. He said n the other mitigating circumstance, if he goes much further back, the 28 foot sign becomes a 15 foot sign, he loses that much grade. Also, Home Depot told him that under no circumstances would they take a sign any less than what they've offered. He said they had backed up on a lot of issues and this was as far back as they could go. He said he would like the opportunity to work with the City on a comprehensive sign plan that everyone could be happy with. Stevens wanted to insert some language that was acceptable to Home Depot and the City of Kalispell. Beard wanted it stipulated that he get the pylon sign variance that was requested. He said he was even more concerned that a comprehensive sign plan with the City would, once again, be him backing down. Eventually, he said, it's over. The 35 by 35 foot sign was approved because they said they needed it. He needed a comprehensive sign package on the full project that would address the City's problem and his concerns about getting enough signs for everyone. Hines asked if Beard backed down by creating muted colors and a store front that blended with the theme set by Rosauers, versus a typical box building like Ernst. He suggested they lost some identity by getting rid of corporate colors and they were trying to preserve some identity along the highway to get people into the store. Hines asked Fraser if he had any input on wording to get the issue moving forward. Rice asked if there were cities where they had a Home Depot with a more restrictive sign ordinance than Kalispell. Warehime said there were a lot of cities, but they didn't sit 1000 feet off the road or 20 feet down. He said diminished or restrictive signs happened in more suburban areas with more of an arterial and 400 feet back. He said in Wyoming, Utah, and Idaho he had not experienced that. He said Missoula sat 1000 feet back and they had a heck of a time distinguishing it, and it wasn't down 20 feet into the ground. MOTION (AMENDED) Pierce moved and Hines seconded to amend condition #23 to read, a comprehensive sign plan be submitted, which indicates an integrated design, not to exceed 270 square feet. ROLL CALL On a roll call vote the motion passed with 7 in favor and 2 opposed. MOTION (AMENDED) Pierce moved and Mann seconded to amend condition #24 to delete the word lumber yards BOARD DISCUSSION Rice asked if all their lumber was kept inside and it was stated Kalispell City -County Planning Board January 9, 2001 Meeting Minutes Page 12, of 28 that yes, except when loading in the back and whatever goes out the front. Van Natta asked if they had to specify casinos. He said he would like to amend the motion to not include casinos or those which require areas that would display large merchandise. Stevens suggested Pierce withdraw his motion, Mann withdraw his second and they strike lumber yards and substitute it with foreign casinos. Fraser spoke against that saying that if a restaurant came in with a full beverage license, casinos come with the license. He said it was allowed in the B-2, it was not something they were saying would happen, but it was not an inappropriate location or use for the area. Stevens asked and Wilson answered that unless it was part of the initial application and anticipated under the proposal it would have to go through the conditional use permit process. Stevens said that if they didn't specifically prohibit them, a proposal coming through for a casino would go through this board and the city council. If it was an objectionable operation they could deny the CUP. Wilson said she needed to speak to the City Attorney to be certain. Stevens said his recommendation was to strike the word lumber yards from the condition, period. He added that Mr. Van Natta could run it up the church at his next meeting and do what he wished to do. Rice added that they shouldn't side step an issue by saying the City Council would take care of it. He said they were there to make recommendations and deal with the issues that needed to be dealt with. Heinecke asked that they bring it up -at the end of the meeting. He thought it was an issue that they did side step a lot. ROLL. CALL On a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously. BOARD DISCUSSION There was a discussion about amending condition 28, regarding bonding as part of the subdivision requirements for the proposed infrastructure and improvements. Heinecke clarified that they wanted to limit the size of the bonding to each phase of the project. Fraser agreed and suggested the wording be; 'bonding for proposed public improvements shall be provided as part of subdivision". He said they had to either build them or bond for them before they could complete the subdivision, which would then complete Kalispell City -County Planning Board January 9, 2001 Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 28 that phase. Wilson expressed concerns that there were no guarantees anything would go in besides Phase 1 regarding public or private improvements. She added that condition 28, whether through a bond or other acceptable means of collateral, insured that public infrastructure would be put in place. Hines believed that once the infrastructure was in the project would be developed to it's maximum. Fraser said when they go up the highway with water and sewer it would be big enough for all of the development. Hines stated the City had a vested interest. It was stated that if the bonding issue were that simple they would agree to bonding up front. It was argued that the condition stated infrastructure and improvements. The question was, what were the improvements. Sipe suggested they were trying to bond each section as they went. Fraser agreed and said it was all part of Phase 1 to design it and the City had to say how big it was going to be going up the highway. He said it would be big enough for everything and once they got into the site they might realize they need a roof over here and a sewer line extension over there. Sipe wanted to add language to say; provided by the developer on each phase as the project develops. Wilson asked why they would need to bond if it were as each project developed. Sipe said they could not get a 12 year bond. MOTION (AMENDED) Sipe moved and Hines seconded to amend condition 28 to read, "the phasing and timing of the development shall occur as proposed. Bonding for proposed public water and sewer, or other acceptable means of insuring that the improvements will be completed as proposed, shall be provided by the developer on each phase as the project develops." BOARD DISCUSSION Van Natta was concerned about what would happen if the water main shut down and the well wasn't developed until phase 3. He said if the well didn't pan out they would end up with a non -loop system. Fraser said they were intending an 8 inch loop around Home Depot as part of Phase 1. Van Natta was concerned that if the system was down or a main broke on the highway they would be high and dry without water. He thought the other piece of the puzzle should be part of the initial development, instead of waiting for phase 3. Kalispell City -County Planning Board January 9, 2001 Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 28 Fraser said that when they start into design that was one of the issues that would be addressed. Van Natta recommended that Public Works didn't issue a building permit until they knew the well was going to work. He said they needed to see the tests on it and Fraser said we all. do. He said they needed to know the water was there. Stevens asked if it was an issue that would be addressed in the development agreement. Fraser said yes, and through the City of Kalispell Public Works and the building permit. Van Natta asked about bonding and Fraser said that if it became part of the Phase 1 improvements it would have to be bonded to go under the condition. Van Natta stressed that the question needed to be resolved, were they going to use the well and was that going to be part of the system, or were they going to loop a line in. Van Natta said it was in the old PUD and thought it should be carried forward. Fraser said they would like to get through the zoning, through the PUD change, with assurances that they have a project and then put forth the effort to answer those questions. Sorenson stated that they were doing a disservice to the developer if they ignored issues that needed to be dealt with and pretended they would be dealt with one month from now. He said the developer would rather know now what was to be expected then to continue with issues that have already cost them in bonding. Stevens said the difficulty with that was that they couldn't give them an answer now because they were only an advisory board. Fraser wanted to refer back to condition #6 regarding fire access and review. It was pointed out that that answered the previous question. Rice said he would have a hard time voting for the amendment without understanding the reasons why they needed bonding for the whole PUD. Heinecke said he agreed with Rice, but didn't want to shoot the project in the foot. ROLL CALL On a roll call vote the motion passed with 6 in favor and 3 opposed. MOTION (AMENDED) Van Natta moved and Mann seconded to amend condition 29 to read, the removal and or relocation of the batch plant, C� associated equipment and warehouses located on the NuPac and the Montana Department of Transportation be Kalispell City -County Planning Board January 9, 2001 Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 28 accomplished prior to the occupancy of the Phase 2 development. BOARD DISCUSSION Stevens asked what it did to staffs recommendation and Wilson said it would change the requirement that relocation be done prior to occupancy of Phase 1, they were saying prior to occupancy of Phase 2, which would allow the Home Depot site to go in and uncertain about the rest of the development. Fraser added that the MDOT site would go away with Phase 1. He said it was possible that the concrete and asphalt plant would be building the improvements in Phase 2 and they would only benefit to have them there. Van Natta asked why FRDO wanted the batch plant out by occupancy and Wilson said the concern was that Phase 1 would go in and nothing else would go in and the batch plant stays and they get Home Depot and the gravel pit both. Van Natta suggested a date and it was stated they had a schedule in the plan. ROLL CALL On a roll call vote the motion passed with 7 in favor and 2 opposed. BOARD DISCUSSION Stevens reviewed condition #31, which was covered in the main motion, that Domesite LLC pact relinquish their interest in existing development agreement prior to a new development agreement being executed for this proposal. Stevens asked if it was a possibility or impossibility. Fraser stated it was a legal question as to how it would be accomplished. There was an existing agreement with signatures that had to be nullified with an overlay of a new one. He said the condition was open ended enough that they could work with it. Rice was concerned that with all the amendments they took some meat out of the deal, although, he thought it was a great idea and a great spot for Home Depot. Mann said there was always the possibility it would not happen, but they had to start somewhere. He said they may run into obstacles that would preclude them from completing. ROLL CALL (MAIN On a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously. MOTION) EVERGREEN RAIL A zone change request by Evergreen Rail Industrial Center from 1 INDUSTRIAL CENTER I-2 to I-1 on approximately 40 acres located west of LaSalle ZONE CHANGE Road and south of West Reserve Drive in Evergreen. Kalispell City -County Planning Board January 9, 2001 Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 28 STAFF REPORT Narda Wilson, of the Flathead Regional Development Office, gave a presentation on staff report FZC-00-11, a zone change �) request by Evergreen Rail industrial Center from I-2, Heavy Industrial, to I-1, Light Industrial on approximately 40 acres. The purpose of the zone change request was to provide an area for high tech industrial development rather than heavy industrial development. Concurrent with the request for a zone change, the applicants have filed for an amendment to the Flathead County Zoning Regulations that would allow high tech industrial businesses as a permitted use in the I-1, Light Industrial, Zoning District and to provide for a definition for "high tech industrial business." The zoning text amendment would go before the Flathead County Planning Board at their regularly January 10, 2001 meeting for consideration. The applicants have interested parties for these types of uses in the existing subdivision, which would not be allowed under the current I-2, Heavy Industrial zoning designation. Stevens said that since there had to be a text amendment anyway it would be simpler to add the uses to the existing zoning, skip the hearing and just have the County hearing and save Mr. Yachechak $900. Wilson stated there were other uses on the property that were non -conforming under the I-2 zoning that would comply with I- 1. She said I-1 zoning was a way to correct the existing �- situation and potential violations existing on the site. Stevens asked how they slipped in. Wilson said it was a lack of communication. PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened to those who wished to speak on the proposal. PROPONENTS Ken Yachechak, 157 N. Meridian Road, stated that Evergreen Rail and Industrial was a wholly owned subsidiary of Flathead Electric Co-op. His partner, Jim Thompson, and he were trying to bring Flathead County out of the 1950's into e-commerce or the e-world. He said to do that they didn't need business they needed industrial zoning with allowable uses. He said computers were not in use 20 years ago and they were looking for the kind of businesses that were computer based, high tech based, or fiber optic based for the industrial park. He said rural use and heavy industrial was nonexistent and they were trying to go to e-commerce. That was what the government and legislature would like to see. His partner, Flathead Electric Co-op, thought it was very positive for the Valley. They were trying to bring business in and amend the text so that other individuals trying to develop property similar to theirs had the ability to do it without butting up against rules. He said he was in favor of the staff recommendations. Kalispell City -County Planning Board January 9, 2001 Meeting Minutes Page 17 of 28 OPPONENTS No one else wished to speak and the public hearing was closed. �) MOTION Rice moved and Pierce seconded to adopt staff report FZC-00- 11 as findings of fact and, based on those findings recommend to the Board of County Commissioners the requested zone change from I-2 to I-1 be approved. BOARD DISCUSSION There was no board discussion. ROLL CALL On a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously. Mr. Yachechak added that Wilson and her staff had been wonderful in helping them step through the process. He said she was very helpful in working with he and his partner with all the procedures necessary to make it all possible and added that he knew she took a lot of flack for other items, but for him, on this one, he was very grateful to her. LEADING, MEYERS A zone change request by Keading, Meyers and Grosswiler from GROSSWILER ZONE AG-80 to SAG-10 on approximately 506 acres in the West CHANGE Valley overlay District and West Side Zoning District. STAFF REPORT Narda Wilson, of the Flathead Regional Development Office, gave a presentation on staff report FZC-00-09, a zone change request from AG=80, an Agricultural zoning district that has a minimum lot size requirement of 80 acres, to SAG-10, a Suburban Agricultural zoning district that has a minimum lot size requirement of 10 acres. The property owners would like to divest portions of their holdings in parcels of approximately ten acres. Based upon the West Valley Land Use Advisory Committee's recommendation for West Valley Zoning staff recommended West Valley Zoning for the property. Hines asked how long ago the zoning was set up and Wilson answered the cluster standards and different thresholds for parcel creation was in 1997. Heinecke asked if staff was recommending no zoning. Wilson stated the recommendation was that if be zoned West Valley Zoning District, which had the same standards everyone else in the West Valley had. Heinecke asked if the properties were zoned AG-80 and Wilson said they were, but with a West Valley overlay, which allowed cluster developing at higher densities. Heinecke asked if the AG-80 would be taken off and Wilson said yes. It would just be West Valley Zoning District. Mann pointed out that if they wanted to alter the zoning of the property they would have to go to the West Valley group and Wilson said they already did, on December 19th. She said the committee recommended they be given the West Valley Zoning District designation and the AG-80 and overlay go away. Kalispell City -County Planning Board January 9, 2001 Meeting Minutes Page 18 of 28 Garberg asked if it went down to 20 acre parcels and Wilson said yes. This particular property, because of the soils could n only go down to 20's or cluster at 1 dwelling to 10 acres or 1 dwelling to 5 acres density. Garberg asked if staff foresaw services coming to the area as creating a problem, down the road, for owners to rezone. He said when arbitrary zones were established people had to come back and change everything. He wondered if it were more appropriate to recommend changing a zone now that would allow the city to expand into it. Wilson said no, not unless services would be available to it because they didn't want premature development of lots that we were not able to go back and redevelop with services. There was a brief discussion between Stevens and Wilson to clarify the area zoning designation. Stevens wondered if they were tying up 76% of the property that would later be served by sewer and water. It was concluded that a provision be put in to provide an open space covenant that would allow further development once public utilities were brought in. Wilson said that if they came in with a subdivision it would be reasonable to do that, however, that was not the proposal before them. Stevens wanted all the board members to understand what was coming down the pike. He stated that for these people to get 10 acre parcels, like they thought they were getting, they had to designate half of it to open space, which would lock it up to the rest of the community when services became available and it would be a terribly inadvisable thing for the board to do. PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened to those who wished to. speak on the proposal. PROPONENTS Larry Lirme, 1705 Emmom Canyon, Kila, said he was representing Helen Kaeding, Starling Grosswiler, and Genevieve Meyers. He asked they raise their hands so the board saw they were real people. He didn't want them to think they were just a zone change or a piece of land, or someone who wanted something for nothing. He said these people had been on the farms for a long time, over 60 years. He said he went to Wilson for one reason, he had Helen's land for sale for $3500.00 per acre and she owns 142 acres. He said farmers don't like the land because they can't make any money on it, but he couldn't find anyone that wanted 142 acres for a home site. He said there were other considerations. The ladies wanted to give some of the property to their children and some to their church. Also, to sell some to take care of them for the rest of their life. He said the zoning eliminated those possibilities for the ladies and it was an unfair proposition. He l j said he talked to Wilson, they discussed SAG-5 and SAG-10 and the only difference was 5 or 10 acre minimums, no Kalispell City -County Planning Board January 9, 2001 Meeting Minutes Page 19 of 28 clustering provisions. The clustering was not a consideration to the ladies because they couldn't afford to put in a development. He said they wanted to sell. He said Keading 02 had to sell big pieces, 80 acres and got $3,000.00 an acre for it. If it was zoned SAG-5 or SAG-10 she could get 7, 8, or $9,000.00 per acre. She could get more money selling less land if the zoning got down to manageable sizes. It made sense to correct the zoning. He said Wilson said she would give him a favorable recommendation for SAG-10 zoning and after they got done at West Valley she asked the board for denial of the SAG- 10 zoning. He said he didn't agree with what she did, he thought she stabbed them in the back. Helen wrote a check for $3,295 dollars for the rezoning. He thought it was crazy that she had to put up this kind of money, especially after looking at what Home Depot just paid. He said they got a favorable recommendation from Wilson and thought the planning office would go along with them. As soon as they went to the West Valley Committee, they said they wanted us in their zoning district. It made sense, they wanted us in their district, west of town, 1500 feet from an R-2 zone. He said he had never done this before and maybe he wasn't the one who should have done it, but he didn't want them to have to pay someone to do it. He said if he would have known what he knew now he would have asked for SAG-5 zoning not SAG-10. He said he didn't want to risk Helen's $3,295.00. If they looked at zoning around them to the east, on the other side of Stillwater Road, it was SAG-10 and this was abutting that, so it would not be spot zoning. If you look at the Master Plan, on the other side of Stillwater Road, it is High Density Residential. He said they were not asking for anything really out there or to make a fortune developing land, they had different uses and they were asking for help to get it done. Stevens said that, just as a note, it was very complicated. The West Valley Zoning District and West Valley Overlay, the SAG- 10, and the whole thing, he didn't think there was a member on the board that understood it, and a person that he knew of, other than a professional planner, who could go out, take a look at a piece of property and tell you what you could do with it. You had to take soil samples, slope samples, measure the road, this and that and it was very complicated. In defense of Linne he said they had a lot of experience and they couldn't figure it out. He asked Linne if he understood that if they got West Valley zoning that they wouldn't have 10 acre parcels. Linne said he knew that. Stevens said he would get 20 acre parcels. Linne said no, we could make 10 acre parcels. Stevens said they could not make 10 acre parcels and Linne said, no, we could. He added that SAG-10 zoning did not require clustering at all. Wilson stated they could have SAG-10 with an overlay, so they could do 10-acre parcels or they could get additional density by doing clustering with 1 for 5. Kalispell City -County Planning Board January 9, 2001 Meeting Minutes Page 20 of 28 There was some confusion regarding the West Valley Zoning District, SAG-10, and the West Valley Overlay. It was 1 concluded that they wanted SAG-10 without the overlay. Wilson said they could get rid of the overlay but it wouldn't hurt them to keep it. Stevens asked, if under the West Valley overlay, they could do 10 acre parcels without clustering. He said he thought there was a 20 acre density in the West Valley Overlay. Wilson said if they had the underlying SAG-10 zoning they could do the 10's or they could increase their density and do 1 dwelling per 5 acres and do clustering. Stevens asked and Wilson answered that with a SAG-5 in the West Valley Overlay they could do 5 acre parcels without clustering. Stevens clarified that if they wanted to give them a straight SAG-10 they didn't want to give them a West Valley Zoning District designation. Wilson said that was correct, they were two completely different things. Linne stated he was unclear about the overlay and Wilson said the overlay didn't do anything but give them additional density if they wanted to cluster, it did not hurt them in any way, it actually helped. Linne said he was so unclear about what the West Valley Zoning was that he couldn't make heads or tails out of it. He said it was 2 zoning districts in 1. �) Stevens gave a synopsis of what he heard said, rather than risk $3,295.00 Linne went for something they didn't want. Linne said no, we wanted SAG-10, we said SAG-5. Stevens said you wanted SAG-5 instead of SAG-10 and Linne said, right. Wilson said no, they talked about SAG-5 and she was told they wanted SAG-10 and she wanted to put that on the table clearly; Linne said they talked about SAG-5 and SAG-10 and Wilson said she would make a positive recommendation for SAG-10. Wilson said that was not what she recalled. Garberg asked if he went in for a SAG-5 and Linne said he went in to talk to Wilson about the possible zoning differences they could come up with to help the gals out. Garberg clarified that Wilson told him that she could recommend a SAG-10 but not a SAG-5, Linne said, correct, that was exactly what she said. Garberg said that in the process he made the application and when it went to West Valley they wanted to take it over and then FRDO came back and recommended denial of your request of SAG-10. Linne said that was correct, because they lived in the West Valley Overlay district they had to deal with the West Valley Committee. Garberg, to understand one step further asked, if Linne had his way now, knowing what he knows, he would come to the board and ask for a SAG-5. Stevens said the issue was one that disturbed him. He Kalispell City -County Planning Board January 9, 2001 Meeting Minutes Page 21 of 28 remarked that when they were dealing with fees in the size of $3,295.00 for an old lady, that was baloney. He said the weight that gave to a FRDO in determining what they applied for was tremendous. Linne didn't want to risk $3,295.00 so he would do what they suggested he do. So, whether coming before the board or the council or the commissioners they use the big fee club to determine what you apply for and I don't like that, he stated, I think that's baloney. Their fee structure and that system is precisely the reason, one of the reasons, why it was a good idea for the county commissioners to bust up that little see -a -fee deal because I was at the meeting where 3 city managers set those fees and 3 city managers had no tie, no affection, no feeling and no responsibility, those people can't vote for those 3 city managers and that's exactly the symptom that's not right. A $3,295.00 fee from an old farmer when a big developer can get by for $1,200.00 is, to me, an obscenity that is perpetrated by a system dominated by 3 city managers. Stevens said the dilemma was not as bad as he thought it was, he thought that with a SAG-10 they couldn't go to 10 without clustering and giving up 50%. He thought in light of the fact, on the end of Spring Creek and Three Mile he saw Northridge coming in up to Four Mile and he knew that Waterford, the big old folks home, would sit at the top of the hill. He didn't think it was appropriate for that section of land to be in the West Valley Overlay and he was going to recommend to the � commissioners that if they move the boundary to the west and `�,_� get that chunk out of there, he didn't think it was an appropriate designation, the West Valley plan. The dilemma the board was in, he said, was they could go ahead and recommend the SAG-10 be approved without the addition of the West Valley Zoning District but he was of the opinion they would want to send -it to the county commissioners with the consideration that they review it with the idea of sending it back to us to examine it for a SAG-5 and doing it at their request so one of the women did not have to write another check. Linne said he wanted to close out, everyone was tired, there would be someone saying they needed to keep their open space. Open space was great, but when they asked for it for free, he didn't think it was right or fair. He said nobody wanted to see the farms broken up, you look and see the golden fields blowing in the wind, it's gorgeous, but who's going to pay the price for it. Karl Schuman, 2428 Mission Trail, financial representative for the Lutheran Church and representing Helen Keading, said he wanted to reiterate what Linne said and speak about the intention of what the ladies were doing with the land and the (r benefit to the community. The intention in Keadings case was to give a gift to her church. In some charitable estate planning Kalispell City -County Planning Board January 9, 2001 Meeting Minutes Page 22 of 28 they were able to take a vast sum of money that would have gone to the federal government and convert that into a state that would now transfer as income to Keading to help secure -- her later years as well as when she passes. He was trying to do the right thing. It would benefit Keading and the community with a sizable portion of estate transferred locally, which trickles down to affect over a thousand people. They were not trying to create the high density proposals that were in fact part of the overall plan out there. They were trying to keep some of the open space, they are old farmlands, near and dear to the heart. He said that keeping with a SAG-5 would keep low density and open space and added that the positive domino effect it would create would be the right thing. Agnus Doris, said she did not live here, she was a taxpayer whose roots go very deep out there because her grandfather was one of the first settlers on Spring Creek. She said they still own some land and she wanted to see the ladies develop whatever they wanted to do, sell it, or whatever, and she was there long before they came. Frank Strickland, 272 Stillwater Road, said he was not addressing how they solved the problem. He was a developer and life goes on and the city grows and we all have to have room for each other. He said a few things needed to be looked at in the process of making a decision. Time was of the essence to get something going on the properties and he wanted to talk about the dollars involved. The $3,500 per acre was for raw farmland, $7,000 to $10,000 an acre was for land with improvements. He said Stillwater Road was a paved road. He believed West Valley was formed because it was too close to Kalispell to be involved in the AG-80. He thought it was close enough in that something needed to be done with it. It was growing in that direction and needed to be in smaller parcels. The problem, he said, was the soil was soft and dusty. Four Mile Drive goes through that section and in the summer a car, going the speed limit of 35 miles per hour, created a dust bellow that went 100 yards high and drifted across the valley. Every time you split down to a 20, 10, down to a 2 1/2 it created more traffic on the roads and the dust blew to the southeast into town. From a dust standpoint he had problems. They could end up with 10 acre parcels that look terrible. If they were split there needed to be a way to get paved roads. Every little finger that was made would need access to paved roads. Maybe clustering was a better avenue but it was hard to do unless someone would go in and develop it. The property to the southeast corner was ideal for clustering, close to town and it almost screened development. As you got further up the valley there was no access to the 10 acre parcels until they got onto Four Mile Drive. Imagine 100 or 200 car trips each day. �) He didn't have an answer, they needed the ability to get that into smaller parcels, but he believed they had a responsibility Kalispell City -County Planning Board January 9, 2001 Meeting Minutes Page 23 of 28 to the people who live in that area to have paved roads so there wasn't a tremendous amount of dust as a result of the decisions that were made. Stevens asked what Strickland thought of an R-1 out there and he said it would be fine if it was a paved road. Mayre Flowers, Citizens For A Better Flathead, said she was speaking for herself, that she lives adjoining the West Valley Zoning District and wanted to recommend they go with the Staff recommendation. She said it offered the opportunity for what's been expressed for the 10 acre option as well as options that might address issues like the dust. She said dust was a real problem with the roads in the West Valley area. She thought clustering was an option that would be provided under the recommendation before them and it provided viability. Stevens said the difficulty they had was that it wouldn't help the ladies to cluster the property. Everyone wanted to cluster but nobody wanted to put the bucks in to do it. Like the story of the little red hen. OPPONENTS No one else wished to speak and the public hearing was closed. MOTION Van Natta moved and Garberg seconded to adopt staff report � FZC-00-09 as fmdings of fact and recommend to the Board of County Commissioners the requested zone change from AG-80 and the West Valley Overlay to SAG-10 be denied and that the property be designated as part of the West Valley 'Zoning District. BOARD DISCUSSION Linne stated that if they wanted paved roads they had to have an R Zoning. Stevens said the difficulty may be that just because they zone something R-1 it didn't mean they could develop it in 1 acre parcels, the sanitation and subdivision act would get in there and if the soil conditions were alright they could zone it R-1 and still wind up with a 5 depending on what the drainage was like. Stevens said they had a request for a SAG-10 zone before them. Stevens suggested Linne could withdraw his application for 30 days or the board could forward it to the County Commissioners recommending approval of the SAG-10 as requested, with an additional recommendation that they review it with an eye in mind to send it back through for examination as a SAG-5, in which case it would be a commissioner initiated request and they would not have to pay for it. Even if we tabled it, he said, it wouldn't change, we would have to take action on a SAG-10. Wilson said that was the proposal before Kalispell City -County Planning Board January 9, 2001 Meeting Minutes Page 24 of 28 them and tabling wouldn't be a viable option unless they had some purpose in doing that. She said they could, based on C� public hearing testimony and board consideration regarding the property, make a recommendation for SAG-5. Stevens said the difficulty that he saw with that was that a public announcement was printed in the paper for a SAG-10, and he wondered if they changed that was the public announcement still valid. Wilson said absolutely, just because it was proposed didn't mean it would be the recommendation of the committee, the staff, or the board. She didn't think it invalidated the notice requirements. There was a brief discussion about the application process. Linne asked if they had to give public notice to go to a SAG-5 and Wilson said there would have to be another public hearing and it would go before the County Commissioners. MOTION (AMENDED) Van Natta moved and Garberg seconded to use the findings and testimony to make a recommendation to change from AG- 80 to SAG-10. BOARD DISCUSSION Van Natta said the land was in the proximity of the City and many years from now he would hate to see it if they went to West Valley Zoning and clustered. They may have 15 acres 1 with 76% permanently dedicated to open space. It seemed it l would make it impossible to have a residential zoning down the road if and when services did arrive. For that reason, he said he had a problem with the West Valley Zoning and preferred SAG-10. Stevens asked about those interested in a SAG-5 designation. Rice asked, if they recommended SAG-10, what oversaw the provision of that property in 10 acre pieces, or recommended SAG-5. Wilson answered that if there was a family transfer, zoning change or subdivision it would go before the board or the County Commissioners, or both. Heinecke asked and Wilson answered that 6 or more lots would take it to County review. She said family transfers were an option and it would be reviewed for compliance of zoning. Rice asked what would happen if it at some point they wanted to develop a 30 acre piece and it was SAG-5. Wilson said it depended on the family transfer, they could do one family transfer per child, per county, per lifetime. Linne stated there were 142 acres in 1 tract and it had 4 family �) transfers within that tract. Kalispell City -County Planning Board January 9, 2001 Meeting Minutes Page 25 of 28 Rice wondered what the difference between 5 and 10 meant in the overall picture. Wislon said they had to create parcels if they were going to convey them. For a family it would be through family transfer and for an individual it would be through subdivision. Rice said that seemed to say that making it into 10 acre pieces wasn't good planning, .there was no plan to it. Stevens said it was a function of subdivision review and they were not there to do that. Rice said he was trying to see where it was going to go. Linne said that if you make it SAG-5 they could make it 5 acres along Stillwater road and later, if someone wanted to subdivide they could pay to do that. He said the ladies could do what they wanted with 5 acres or 10 acres they would have the opportunity to sell along the road. Rice agreed that by going to SAG-10 or SAG-5 would give them the ability to sell some pieces. Wilson said that could be done through family transfer but not _ through subdividing. Rice was worried that if it ended up with SAG-10 and City sewer and water showed up it would be wasted. Linne said a 5 acre piece could handle a septic tank. Stevens said if they made it 10 that was not to say it wouldn't be changed to 5. He said the power lines took up a large chunk of open space and he .didn't think, dealing with people who have respect with the property, that if they gave 10 they could sell 10's. Garberg said he thought that was what Rice was getting at. Were they creating dust and traffic. He didn't know the answer. He said he was seeing checker boards of 5 acre parcels and he didn't want to be part of creating that. He didn't have as much of a problem with 10 acre parcels. MOTION (AMENDED) Mann moved and- Sipe seconded to amend the motion for a SAG-10 designation to a SAG-5. C� BOARD DISCUSSION Heinecke asked if they were getting to a shaky place and Wilson said they could legally do this. Kalispell City -County Planning Board January 9, 2001 Meeting Minutes - Page 26 of 28 Stevens said that if it was shaky, when it got to the Commissioner, they could ask the County Attorney. He said 01 they had the option to send it back to the planning board. Garberg recommended approval and letting them discuss the options. Pierce asked if, along with the amendment, could they keep the West Valley Zoning and Overlay. Wilson said it was part of the neighborhood plan and area. Mann said he thought a 5 acre designation gave the owner more options. He thought 10 acres was a waste and they were better off with smaller parcels. Sipe agreed, saying it gave the developer a better opportunity to buy 4 or 5 lots and create roads. , Rice disagreed with 5 or 10 and said 10 acre lots would create critter problems and 5 acres would become a weed patch. Heinecke asked about the limit of 20 acres and Wilson stated the West Valley zoning designation dealt with density based on soil types and that was what limited it to 20 acres. Van Natta said he preferred the SAG-10 because that was requested and he was more comfortable with that size. He said it gave the owner a lot of options and it gave them the cluster. Wilson said it took a minimum of 20 acres to cluster. Garberg said he was more comfortable with SAG-10. He said that with 5 acres people took care of 1 acre and the rest went to seed. ROLL CALL On a roll call vote the motion passed with 5 in favor and 3 opposed, Don Hines abstained. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business presented. NEW BUSINESS Stevens wanted the board to consider a short work session and said he would contact everyone for an agreeable date. Heinecke said he wouldn't be there for the 25th and added that there were issues, like the connection from Grandview over to West 3rd that got dropped and he wanted them talked about. His opinion was that if they didn't get talked about they didn't get done. He thought the road should be connected. Stevens stated these were controversial issues and he wanted them reflected clearly in the minutes. He said he didn't want any adjustments by FRDO. Kalispell City -County Planning Board January 9, 2001 Meeting Minutes Page 27 of 28 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned on a motion by Pierce and seconded by Sipe at approximately 12:15 a.m. The next regular meeting will be Tuesday, February 13, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. Grefi S ens, Pre,5ident Approved as mi /corrected: _,�Q/_L3'01 U �i� ab - . - - Kalispell City -County Planning Board January 9, 2001 Meeting Minutes Page 28 of 28