05-09-00KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
MINUTES OF MEETING
MAY 9, 2000
CALL TO ORDER AND Jean Johnson called the meeting to order at approximately
ROLL CALL 7:00 p.m. Members present were: Jean Johnson, Rob
Heinecke, Greg Stevens, Don Garberg, Don Mann, Don Hines,
Bill Rice and Brian Sipe. Narda Wilson represented the
Flathead Regional Development Office. There were
approximately 16 people in the audience.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion by Stevens and seconded by Mann the minutes of
the meeting of April 11, 2000 were approved unanimously, as
submitted.
KOUNS ZONE CHANGE A request by Wesley and Donna Kouns for a zone change from
R-5 to I-1 on approximately 1.26 acres on the east side of
Highway 93 South and south of Twin Acres road approximately
300 feet.
STAFF REPORT Narda Wilson gave a presentation on staff report FZC-00-3 in
which staff recommends that the zone change be granted. In
addition the staff recommends that the board consider adding
an item to the work program that directs staff to examine areas
within the planning jurisdiction for situations such as this and
bring it to the board for review. Wilson stated that this parcel
is bisected by the zone boundary for I-1 and R-5. It is a mix of
zoning in the area. The purpose of the zone change to I-1 is to
allow for a large shop for a truck repair business. This zone
change does not comply with the Master Plan but does conform
to the area zoning.
PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened to those who wished to speak
on the application.
PROPONENTS Donna Kouns spoke in favor of the project stating that they
want to expand the building on the back of their property. She
stated that they would appreciate the board's support.
No one else wished to speak and the public hearing was closed.
BOARD DISCUSSION There was no board discussion.
MOTION Sipe moved and Hines seconded to adopt staff report FZC-00-3
as findings of fact and, based on these findings, recommend
that the Flathead County Commissioners grant the zone
change from R-5 to I-1. On a roll call vote all members voted
Aye. The motion to recommend that the zone change from R-5
to I-1 be approved passed unanimously.
BOB CRISMORE / A request by Eagle Private Trust for a zone change from R-1 to
EAGLE PRIVATE TRUST R-2 on approximately 4.79 acres located north of West Reserve
ZONE CHANGE Drive on the west side of Scenic Drive in Evergreen.
BOB CRISMORE / A request by Eagle Private Trust for preliminary plat approval
EAGLE PRIVATE TRUST of an eight lot residential subdivision on approximately 4.79
PRELIMINARY PLAT acres located north of West Reserve Drive on the west side of
Scenic Drive in Evergreen.
STAFF REPORT Narda Wilson gave a presentation on staff reports FZC-00=1
and FPP-00-5 in which staff recommends that the Board of
Commissioners grant the zone change and preliminary plat
approval for Eagle Private Trust. Wilson stated that this is
another property that would have benefited from having the
County initiate the zone change.
PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened to those who wished to speak
on the application.
PROPONENTS Jeff Larsen, project engineer, spoke in favor of the application
stating that this is an infill project and that he was available to
answer questions by the board.
No one else wished to speak and the public hearing was closed.
BOARD DISCUSSION Stevens stated that he thought it looked like a good project.
0 Rice asked and Larsen answered that they would have to
perform tests to determine if the lines would have to be
redesigned.
MOTION Stevens moved and Sipe seconded to adopt staff report FZC-00-
1 as findings of fact and, based on these findings, recommend
that the Flathead County Commissioners grant the zone
change from R-1 to R-2. On a roll call vote all members voted
Aye. The motion to recommend granting the zone change from
R-1 to R-2 passed unanimously.
Mann moved and Stevens seconded to adopt staff report FPP-
00-5 as findings of fact and, based on these findings,
recommend that the Flathead County Commissioners grant
preliminary plat approval subject to the conditions as outlined
in the report. On a roll call vote all members voted Aye. The
motion to recommend that preliminary plat approval be
granted passed unanimously.
J & F CONSTRUCTION / A request by J & F Construction on behalf of Vernon Johnson
JOHNSON ZONE for a zone change from SAG-10 and AG-80 to R-2 on
CHANGE approximately 112 acres on the north side of West Reserve
` Drive west of the intersection of Highway 93 South and West
Reserve Drive approximately one half mile.
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
May 9, 2000 Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 16
J & F CONSTRUCTION A request by J & F Construction for preliminary plat approval
PRELIMINARY PLAT of a 127 lot residential subdivision known as Stillwater View
Estates on approximately 127 acres on the north side of West
-- Reserve Drive west of the intersection of Highway 93 South and
West Reserve Drive.
STAFF REPORT Wilson gave a presentation on staff report FZC-00-2 and FPP-
00-6 in which staff recommends that the zone change from AG-
80 and SAG-10 to R-2 be granted and that preliminary plat
approval be granted for Stillwater View Estates. Wilson stated
that the curved streets were designed in an effort to slow traffic
and staff feels that the traffic will move well within the
subdivision as designed. The concerns of the West Valley
Advisory Committee are outlined in the report. The roadways
would be privately owned and maintained. The impacts to
West Reserve Drive would be considerable due to all of the
internal roadways leading to the single access of West Reserve
Drive and therefore the Flathead County Road Department is
recommending that a traffic analysis be completed to determine
the potential increase to the traffic between Farm to Market
Road and West Reserve Drive. The proposal is for 127 lots
each with onsite sewage systems. The City is currently
studying the future extension of services and this area would
be considered good for potential expansion. It appears that
sewer service should be considered and this was one of the
largest concerns of the West Valley District. The total parkland
dedication should be approximately 7.2 acres and the
development is approximately one acre short of that dedication.
Garberg asked and it was clarified that this is the same project
that was presented to the board as the plan amendment
several months ago.
PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened to those who wished to speak
on the application.
PROPONENTS John Parson representing J&F Construction spoke in favor of
the application stating that the developers have some concerns
on the conditions. He went over the amendments and
deletions to the conditions as requested by the developers:
3. Add in Phase Two to the end of the condition
4. The road extension is no longer needed because this
easement is no longer needed therefore the condition
should be deleted
.5. Change to four foot concrete or asphalt attached or
detached pedestrian walkway
7. The developers are already conducting a traffic study so
this condition should be deleted
11. Change from developers to property owners (otherwise it
will kill the project)
�J 12.Again change from developer to property owner
13. Add "internal" to the site
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
May 9, 2000 Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 16
19. Change wording to "parks and improvements" as shown
on the plat and delete balance of condition
Mike Frazier representing the Johnson's and J&F Construction
spoke in favor of the project. He stated that there are parks
planned throughout the subdivision and even though they do
not come up to the 7.2 acres they would like to make
improvements with cash of equivalent value rather than land
so that they can improve the dedicated parkland areas. These
meet the regulations for the non -degradation rule. Because the
City does not have a timetable for sewer extensions they cannot
be held hostage for sewer. If allowed to proceed under DEQ
requirements and once the sewer is extended to the subdivision
property line then they will hook up either through an SID or
by the developers. The increased enrollment in the schools will
be covered by the taxes generated by the lots and since they
have passed a bond issue the increased enrollment already has
some coverage and makes the issue mute. They do not feel it is
appropriate to saddle the developers with offsite improvements
such as in conditions 11 and 12.
Frank Strickland spoke in favor of the application stating that
they have had a good response to the `rural/residential' feel in
other projects and they believe this will also be a very good
subdivision. He stated that they are trying to provide lots that
will allow for a larger lot size which will in turn allow for a
larger house and yard area but not so large that the lots would
not be manageable ,or maintained. There should be smaller
parks within each phase rather than having one large park that
will be so far from some of the homes that they are not useable.
OPPONENTS Bill Breen, 335 Mountain Meadow Road, spoke against the
project noting that he had three main issues of concern. With
the anticipation of City sewer extension and the DNRC plans
the sewer should be required now. The DNRC development will
include sewer services. It is reasonable to ask at least for dry
lines in anticipation of service extensions. He proposed that
the sidewalks be constructed to five-foot standards on both
sides of the interior right-of-ways in the entire development.
This is proposed to be a median upscale development and not
having sidewalks reflects on the quality of the development. It
is not unreasonable; it quiets the traffic, gives children a place
to play off of the street and is a safety issue as well. He pointed
out that he didn't even see the 4-foot pedestrian path on the
plat map. He would ask for a more precise phasing schedule.
If there is not a somewhat definitive estimate of phase
completion then it doesn't provide a plan to follow for agency
budgets, which helps the taxpayers. On the issue of traffic the
West Valley School does not provide bus services. He would
ask the developers to keep that in mind when completing their
traffic study.
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
May 9, 2000 Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 16
Jamie Armstrong, 281 Arbor Drive West, stated that he was not
necessarily against the development, but more against the
planning or lack of planning for development in the area. He
stated that he has concerns over the master plan and the
`- bypass plans. He stated that he is concerned that the
infrastructure should be considered in the planning of any
annexations, the dome development, the mall development, as
well as the bypass plans. He stated that there should be
consideration made in regard to those developments and the
future plans of the area when considering a subdivision of this
size in the same area. He agrees that because there are
current sewer expansion plans the developers should be
required to have sewer lines ready within the development.
This development would impact the school further than what
the already passed bond will cover. All of these concerns go
back to the premise that in planning growth in an appropriate
way includes establishing infrastructure prior to actual build
out. He asked that the board be more informed on the future
of the area. The County and the City should work together to
complete assessments on infrastructure as well as traffic for
the future of this entire area. The anticipation of the growth to
the Kalispell community should be looked at and the
infrastructure funding should be considered carefully and,
where possible, already be in place.
No one else wished to speak and the public hearing was closed.
ZONE CHANGE MOTION Heinecke moved and Mann seconded to adopt staff report FZC-
J 00-2 as findings of fact and, based on these findings,
recommend that the zone change from SAG-10 and AG-80 to
R-2 be granted. On a roll call vote all members voted Aye. The
motion to recommend approval of the zone change from SAG-
10 and AG-80 to R-2 passed unanimously.
DISCUSSION AND Mann moved and Sipe seconded to adopt staff report FPP-00-6
MOTIONS ON as findings of fact and, based on these findings, recommend
PRELIMINARY PLAT that the Board of Commissioners grant preliminary plat
approval subject to the conditions as outlined in the report.
Rice moved and Stevens seconded to amend the motion to
amend condition three: "That the secondary fire access road
to the west be increased to a 60 foot wide easement to provide
for the future extension of the roadway and that the roadway
be constructed in Phase Two to Flathead County standards
for an emergency access road, i.e. 20 foot wide gravel roadway
to Stillwater Road." On a vote by acclamation all members
voted Aye. The motion to amend the motion to amend
condition three passed unanimously.
Rice moved and Stevens seconded to amend the motion to
delete condition four.
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
May 9, 2000 Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 16
Wilson explained that if the developers don't need that road
then this condition can be deleted and the developers can
reconfigure the lots, to be like the lots at the corner to the
neast, so that the road does not have a dead end portion. If
they plan to use the road for future extension then the
condition should be left in to allow for compliance with the
regulations.
�i
Mann questioned whether this condition was there so that
there wouldn't be a dead end road.
Wilson answered that yes the developers proposed this as a
future extension and so since the subdivision regulations don't
allow for a dead end street the condition insures compliance.
If they are proposing a future extension then maybe the
condition should state that it should be left undeveloped, and
if it is not needed then the lots would just be reconfigured.
Mann stated that he thought that the condition was prudent,
as a dead end street is not allowed in a subdivision, and so he
would not be in favor of deleting the condition.
Wilson stated that maybe the way to address it would be to
just say `or the lots be reconfigured if the easement is not
necessary'.
Stevens stated that it was his understanding that this roadway
is in the third phase and as it. is developed the board can
revise the preliminary plat to reconfigure it slightly. So that
when the third phase comes into being it might be
reconfigured so there is no dead end street there. And if it
isn't reconfigured then the subdivision regulations will require
that a cul-de-sac be put in there prior to approval of the final
plat.
Wilson stated the board could leave the condition in with
additional language that allows for reconfiguration. Because
by leaving it as proposed it leaves it as a dead end street.
Heinecke agreed that it would be left on the plat as a dead end
street.
Wilson again stated that staff encouraged the board to re -write
the condition to allow for the reconfiguration of lots rather
than deleting the condition.
Sipe asked and it was clarified that there is already an
agreement with Mr. Claridge and so the extension of the road
is not needed anymore. Since the road is not needed at all
and the lots could be reconfigured at this point.
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
May 9, 2000 Meeting Minutes
Page 6 of 16
Wilson stated that the board could have `that the roadway
extension to the north be reconfigured into lots', if the board
wants to eliminate the option for a future roadway extension.
Heinecke asked and Frazier answered that this condition is
not a critical issue and they would like to get on with it
because there are other conditions of far more importance.
Rice withdrew the motion.
There were no changes made to condition four.
Rice moved and Hines seconded to amend the motion to
amend condition five to read "That a concrete or asphalt
pedestrian walkway a minimum of five feet wide shall be
installed either attached or detached on at least one side of
the subdivision along the exterior perimeter of the primary
interior roadway identified as West and East Barley Lane and
along West Reserve Drive within the subdivision."
Johnson asked and Frazier answered that the developers
wanted the condition amended to four feet because four feet is
the minimum requirement for a pedestrian path.
Rice asked and the developer answered that there are
approximately 167 lots in the three phases of Country View
Estates which has 60 foot right of ways and 24 foot wide roads
with no sidewalks or pedestrian access and everything works
fine.
Stevens asked and Breen answered that his opinion was based
on his observations over the years, that it seems rather true
that sidewalks have a quieting influence and allow more safety
for the children. And he sees it that there is a reason that
most all cities around the country, including Kalispell, require
sidewalks in new subdivisions.
Stevens stated that he thinks the subdivisions are more
attractive without the sidewalks.
Rice stated that it is more aesthetically pleasing not to have
sidewalks and it is nice to have just the street, but there can
be safety issues so his amendment would require the
developers to just widen the street on one side for a bike and
pedestrian path.
Mann asked and it was answered that the board has required
sidewalks in many other subdivisions.
On a vote by acclamation: Johnson, Mann, Heinecke, Rice,
Sipe, Garberg and Hines voted Aye. Stevens voted No. The
C} motion to amend condition five passed on a vote of 7 in favor
and one opposed.
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
May 9, 2000 Meeting Minutes
Page 7 of 16
Stevens asked and the developers answered that they already
have a subdivision traffic estimate, and a traffic analysis for the
roadway impacts is already in progress, and a traffic engineer
has already been hired. A traffic engineer will go to the
roadways in question and look at the intersections and look at
the turning movements the actual volumes of traffic at peak
hours and then look at the capacity issues that they generate.
They would then determine the level of service and whether or
not there are improvements necessary. Once the analysis for
this development is complete then the developers will deal with
any impacts, if there are any. If there aren't then they won't
have to do anything. The developers are proposing a right/left
turn lane from the subdivision onto West Reserve Drive.
Garberg asked how it would be possible to enter into an
agreement with the City of Kalispell for extension of sewer
when there isn't sewer there.
Wilson stated that the developer would extend the sewer to the
subdivision and enter into an agreement with the City.
Stevens stated that there should be a motion on the floor
before any discussion.
Stevens moved and Garberg seconded to delete condition 11.
Rice asked and Wilson answered that it would be a
development agreement which would allow the developers to
be reimbursed, according to the agreement, as future
extensions beyond this extension are made the subsequent
users would pay a developer reimbursement fee. So when
DNRC, the dome, or any others come onto and connect to that
line they would pay a developer fee according to the
agreement.
Garberg asked if it was the City's policy not to extend sewer
unless the property is contiguous to existing sewer and Wilson
said yes, at times..
Rice clarified that the developers would pay to extend the
sewer from where it quits now to the subdivision and then
they would get reimbursed through this agreement as others
connect to that line.
Heinecke stated that it should have public sewer. It would be
a step backward not to have a sewer requirement. Maybe not
required prior to building the lots out, but somehow require
that this development will have sewer eventually. This is
proposed as a medium upscale project and the board should
not be so concerned about this as they would be for an
affordable housing subdivision.
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
May 9, 2000 Meeting Minutes
Page 8 of 16
Johnson stated that this developer is not trying to get out of it.
The motion is, and maybe we better have a motion down the
road to better delineate what we're trying to accomplish, I
don't know how. Johnson stated he believed the motion
should be stated more clearly to know what is expected. Ask
the developer to clarify if what they were saying was that they
would be receptive to extending sewer within the subdivision
but that they did not want to have to extend sewer from
Reserve and 93 to the property.
Frazier responded by saying that Johnson was correct. If
sewer were extended to the subdivision property line the
developers would extend it within the subdivision.
Johnson stated that the developer would entertain an
agreement that they would install sewer lines within the
subdivision when sewer is available to the property. But if the
line stopped down at the corner the developers would not be
receptive to extending it that 400 approximate feet to the
property line.
Frazier stated that they would be receptive to discussing it but
don't want it as part of the conditions.
Johnson asked that for example, phase one is finished, and
lets forget about dry sewer lines, and the sewer becomes
n available, what would the developers do?.
\.� Frazier stated that the developer would then extend sewer into
phase two and would participate in the creation of an SID to
sewer phase one.
Garberg asked about the cost of putting in dry sewer line
during construction of the development, and it was answered
approximately $30 per foot but they don't have a design from
the City as to how the lines would get there or how long before
the sewer would get there.
Garberg stated that they had a proposal previously with a
similar situation and the board agreed to put language in that
`should the sewer become available the developer would hook
in'. And these developers are in agreement with that, so they
should include that verbiage in the conditions.
Heinecke stated that he wants to address it some way or
another.
The motion to delete condition 11 passed on a unanimous vote
by acclamation.
Hines moved and Garberg seconded to amend the motion to
amend condition 12 to read, "That the developer install sewer
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
May 9, 2000 Meeting Minutes
Page 9 of 16
me e-xtensien of the —City —ef Kalispell sewer serry ee shall
install sewer lines in any remaining phases at such time
as sewer becomes available to the property and that the
developer shall participate in an SID for any phases
- already developed.
Mann asked that staff help put some teeth into that motion.
Hines interjected and asked that the engineer assist him on
making the motion, asking for wording for this motion so that it
is acceptable to both parties.
Frazier gave the wording of the condition.
Mann asked how the developer would participate in the SID
when they don't own lots anymore.
Stevens said they would probably still own part of it.
Wilson stated that they might not all be sold at the time of
extension.
Frazier stated that they probably would own lots and the sewer
going down Barley Lane will benefit the remaining lots and so
there is benefit to the developer to pay part of that cost, so the
developer can participate through a cash donation or other
mechanisms in the SID.
Mann stated that it needs to be clearer, the board needs to do
something to legally attach those lots or require the owner of
the lot at the time to agree to extend the sewer internally.
Frazier stated that Mann's concern was addressed in condition
13.
Mann clarified that the developer does not have to participate
in any way until somebody gets the sewer line to the
subdivision property.
Mann and Heinecke agreed that it might never get to the
property line and that there should be some teeth so that if
sewer gets close to the property then the subdivision must
connect.
Frazier stated that the City's intent at their May meeting was to
run sewer to these properties using grant money. The
developer is functioning under that philosophy, if they change,
then the developer will listen to them. But at this time the
developers are responding to their declared intent that they will
extend sewer to the property using grant money.
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
May 9, 2000 Meeting Minutes
Page 10 of 16
Stevens stated that the City will want to • annex those
subdivisions for tax purposes and if the developer waives
protest to annexation then the City will get those lines to them.
Heinecke stated that he didn't see that the amendment ends up
with something that benefits the subdivision.
Garberg stated that he believed the motion does say that the
developers will sewer beyond developed phases, if sewer
becomes available to the property. The motion also says that
the developer will participate in the sewer in the developed
portions through an SID.
The board discussed the need for further clarification that they
would have to agree to be annexed so that there could be an
SID and that condition 13 could be amended to handle that
issue.
Garberg stated that he agrees with the motion as stated.
On a roll call vote: Stevens', Sipe, Hines, Garberg and Mann
voted Aye. Johnson, Heinecke and Rice voted No. The motion
to amend the motion to amend condition 12 passed on a vote of
five in favor and three opposed.
Garberg moved and Heinecke seconded to amend the motion to
amend condition 13 to read, "That a note be placed on the face
of the final plat which states the current and future property
owners will waive protest to a special improvement district for
the extension of pubic sewer internal to the site."
Heinecke moved and Rice seconded to amend the motion to
amend condition 13 to include "and waive protest to
annexation."
On a roll call vote all members voted Aye. The motion tc
amend the motion to amend condition 13 passed unanimously.
On a roll call vote all members voted Aye on the motion to
amend the motion to amend condition 13 as amended. The
motion to amend the main motion to amend condition 13 to
read, "That a note be placed on the face of the final plat which
states the current and future property owners will waive
protest to a special improvement district for the extension of
pubic sewer internal to the site 'and waive protest to
annexation.", passed unanimously
Garberg stated that by his notes there is no dispute by the
developers on conditions 14 through 21.
Johnson explained that there was dispute on condition 14.
0
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
May 9, 2000 Meeting Minutes
Page 11 of 16
Stevens moved and Sipe seconded to amend the motion to
delete condition 14.
1 Stevens stated that to task the developers to come up with a
\ J mutually agreeable solution without stating what the terms of
the solution might be leaves everything way to much in the air,
he would not want to sign his name on something that said he
had to come to a mutually agreed upon solution. That
terminology leaves things too wide open and it is his
understanding that since the school bond has passed,
overcrowding is no longer an issue. Therefore he thinks the
condition is no longer necessary.
Mann stated that he agreed with Stevens.
Heinecke asked and staff answered that the equation would be
that the 127 lots would generate 60 to 80 children.
Mann stated that at this point it can't be known how many kids
they'd have and when they get around to having all of the
others built there may be ten more schools around there that
may be more appropriate. To try and predict at this point
which school is most appropriate for this subdivision is
ludicrous.
Steven stated that 60 children in a ten-year build out would
add about six kids a year.
On a roll call vote all members voted Aye. The motion to
amend the motion to delete condition 14 passed unanimously.
Johnson stated that now Garberg could make his motion on
conditions 15 through 18.
Garberg started to make the motion and it was interjected that
a motion was not needed if there were no changes to the
conditions.
Johnson stated that since they weren't going to change
anything Garberg didn't need to make the motion.
Stevens moved and Garberg seconded to amend the motion to
amend condition 19 to read, "That the parkland dedication
shall be met by providing parks areas and improvements as
shown on the Preliminaru Plat within the subdivision
Garberg asked if that covered the legal issue of parkland
dedication.
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
May 9, 2000 Meeting Minutes
Page 12 of 16
U
Wilson explained that the developer would have to show at the
time of final plat that they have made improvements to the
parkland area that would equal the market value of the
remaining undedicated portion.
Johnson asked and Wilson answered that the developers would
have to show documentation that they have made the
improvements in an equivalent amount of the market value of
the remaining undedicated portion. So if they had paid
$4,000.00 per acre undeveloped, and they had a remaining two
plus acres then they would have show documentation that they
had paid $8000.00 to $10,000.00 in improvements.
Johnson asked and Wilson clarified that they developers would
have the requirement to prove that they had made those
improvements at the time of final plat.
Stevens asked Parsons if this was covered in his document,
`Environmental Assessment for Stillwater View Estates' and
Rice answered that it was on page seven of eight.
Parsons stated that there is a control factor when doing a.final
plat. At the time of final plat for phase one the developer would
show the required parkland and improvements that would be
the equivalent to the regulatory requirements, and then phase
two and so on. So each phase would have to prove that it has
met the requirements.
Mann stated that allocating dedicated parkland is supposed to
be for a place for children to play and what shows on the plat
does not seem to meet that need.
Stevens stated that this is a valid consideration on smaller lots
but not on larger lots such as these at nearly 2/3 acre. The
children would have plenty of room to play on their own lot. So
based on the size of the lots he doesn't see it as being as big a
factor as it would be on smaller lots.
Rice stated that the park usually ends up being discarded land
that is not useable. He stated that having an open space buffer
is good as well and having small areas for playgrounds adds
more yet.
Frazier stated the strip along west reserve is big enough to do
something with as far as play area improvements are
concerned. And they are proposing that in addition to that
they would have small park areas with each phase.
On a roll call vote the motion to amend the motion to amend
condition 19 passed unanimously.
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
May 9, 2000 Meeting Minutes
Page 13 of 16
Wilson stated that condition 22 was not accurate and gave a
recommendation for amendment.
Stevens moved and Sipe seconded to amend condition 22 to
C- J read, "That this preliminary sal be valid for a per4ed of th
years, ca-ad any e-xtensions granted by the---GoufAy
eenditional use permit. The preliminary plat is valid _for a
period of three _years and the _filing of each phase shall
extend the preliminary plat _for two years with a possible
one _-year extension."
Garberg asked if the developers had any objection to that
amendment.
Frazier stated that they believe that the extensions are valid for
three years and so suggested that the amendment be `as
allowed under statute.'
Stevens agreed to the developers wording of his motion. The
motion to amend the motion to amend condition 22 to read,
"The Preliminaru Plat is valid for a Period of three nears
and the filing of each phase shall extend the preliminary
plat as allowed under statute" passed unanimously.
Rice asked and it was answered that condition 21 was needed
n but item C of the condition was not necessary.
Upon questioning the developers stated that they preferred to
have item C of condition 21 deleted.
Stevens moved and Sipe seconded to amend the motion to
amend condition 21 to delete item C.
On a roll call vote the motion to amend the motion to delete
item C of condition 21 passed unanimously.
On a roll call vote on the main motion: Johnson, Stevens,
Sipe, Hines, Garberg, Heinecke, Mann and Rice voted Aye. The
amended motion to recommend preliminary plat approval
subject to amended conditions passed unanimously.
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
May 9, 2000 Meeting Minutes
Page 14 of 16
OLD BUSINESS FRDO Annual Work Program:
�J Stevens stated that it was decided at the workshop to return
- the master plan to the planning board along with their
respective concerns . for board review in light of their
recommendations. Having just the finalization of the Kalispell
City County Growth Policy Plan will be a full agenda for the
year.
Wilson stated that staff would like to recommend adding
review of the zones to take County initiative in making zone
changes where appropriate to the work program.
Stevens stated that he would change the regulations to allow
for properties with a split boundary to be rezoned to the
property owners choosing, at no charge.
Stevens moved and Mann seconded to have the work agenda
list to include: to finalize the City County Master Plan; and to
examine a policy for parcels split by zoning boundaries.
Rice moved and Garberg seconded to amend the motion have
those two issues be listed as the first and second priority and
to include the other items on the list as presented in the
memorandum.
On a roll call vote: Heinecke, Hines, Sipe, Johnson, Rice,
Garberg and Mann voted Aye. Stevens voted No. The motion
to amend the motion passed on a vote of seven in favor and one
opposed.
On a roll call vote on the amended motion for the work
program: Heinecke, Hines, Sipe, Johnson, Rice, Garberg and
Mann voted Aye. Stevens voted No. The amended motion to
have the work agenda item as follows passed on a vote of seven
to one in favor:
1. Continue on the update of the Kalispell City -County Master
Plan.
2. To examine a policy for parcels split by zoning boundaries.
3. Develop a plan and timeframe for the annexation of areas
outside the city limits currently receiving City services.
4. Address "development issues," i.e. development on State
Lands property, mall development and Highway 93 south
utilities development.
5. Revisit the Kalispell Bike and Pedestrian plan as part of the
growth policy update document.
6. General "housekeeping" amendments to the Kalispell
Zoning Ordinance.
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
May 9, 2000 Meeting Minutes
Page 15 of 16
J
NEW BUSINESS: Johnson stated that he does not like the use of waiver to or
FRDO ANNUAL WORK participation in an SID as a solution to the issues such as
PROGRAM water/sewer extensions or sidewalks. These are financing
mechanisms and should not be used in this way. He has been
asked by the City to draft a proposed policy on what should be
done. SID's or RSID's are not the answer. And the other
instance on RSID's or SID's is that they are very easy to create,
he does it for a living and if anybody wants one, give him a
holler.
Garberg reported that Randy Ek has resigned. He asked and it
was answered that there is an ad in the paper and the
Commissioners will be reviewing and appointing someone in
the near future.
ADJOURNMENT A special meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, May 23, 2000 at 6
p.m. The next regular meeting will be June 12, 2000 at 6 p.m.
The meeting was adjourned by motion at approximately 9:55
p.m.
V)/�/Xj XI�e
Jean A. Johnson, Presiders v Tricia Laske, Re ording Secretary
Approve das s� ed/corrected: J 1�,Z2/00
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
May 9, 2000 Meeting Minutes
Page 16 of 16