Loading...
09-12-00KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MEETING SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 CALL TO ORDER AND Johnson called the meeting to order at approximately 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Members present were: Jean Johnson, Rob Heinecke, Bill Rice, Don Garberg, Brian Sipe, Don Hines, and Greg Stevens. Dale Pierce and Don Mann were absent. Narda Wilson represented the Flathead Regional Development Office. There were approximately 11 people in the audience. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion by Garberg and seconded by Sipe the minutes of the meeting of August S, 2000 were unanimously approved. SWANBERG ZONING A request by Louise E. Swanberg for amendments to the AMENDMENT Kalispell Zoning ordinance addressing the expansion of non- conforming uses. STAFF REPORT Narda Wilson gave a presentation on staff report KZTA-00-1, where staff recommended approval of the amendment. Wilson stated there were limited alterations that could be made to a building with non -conforming uses. She said most of the lots in the east side area were residential with the exception of Woodland Floral, two medical offices, and the Court House East. Wilson stated Swanberg wanted to make a small O addition to her medical office and found out that, under the zoning regulations, expansion of non -conforming uses was not allowed. Staff felt the proposal was reasonable and was generally consistent with how the other jurisdictions handled non -conforming uses. Wilson said within the last several years the County, Whitefish, and Columbia Falls had all made changes to their zoning regulations, allowing expansion of non- conforming uses up to 50%, subject to a conditional use permit. Staff felt that non -conforming use standards should be more in line with the County and what other jurisdictions were doing. Wilson noted, as an aside, the City's treatment of changes to non -conforming uses should be as a separate issue. The issue before the Board dealt with the expansion of non- conforming uses. Staff felt it served the public, as well as the investment of the property owner by encouraging them to maintain the property, knowing it would be a long term investment. She said there was always the balance between what's good for the neighbor and what's good for the individual, and thought this proposal struck a reasonable balance. She said the proposed change would allow expansion of 25% or less under administrative review and 25% to 50% would require a conditional use permit. had the right to go to the Board of Adjustment. The consensus of the Board was that the administrative process was good, it would speed up the process for the applicant, and the Board of Adjustment was set up for the appeal process in case of denial. ROLL CALL On a roll call vote the motion to adopt staff report KZTA-00-1 as findings of fact passed unanimously for the text amendment and was forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. APEX 1 LLC A request by Apex 1, LLC for annexation into the City of ANNEXATION Kalispell and an initial zoning designation of R-4 and RA-1 in southwest Kalispell in conjunction with the subdivision known as Stratford Village Subdivision. STAFF REPORT Narda Wilson, representing the Flathead Regional Planning Department, gave a presentation on two staff reports; KA-00-6 (annexation and initial zoning), and KPP-00-5 (preliminary plat approval), and asked that the Board handle them as two separate motions. The Board was in agreement. Wilson stated Stratford Subdivision was on the summer agenda, but was pulled so they could acquire the adjoining property. . She pointed out the proposed subdivision on a site map. Wilson said that adding the property to the north resulted in a cleaner subdivision design. Staff reviewed the project briefly and noted O R-4 zoning for the majority of the project and RA-1 zoning for the far west corner. She said the potential for duplexes was possibly 20-25%. She reported- on roadways, saying the connections of South Meadows area and Sunnyside Drive would be important links in the roadway network of Kalispell. Wilson thought they would eventually come in with a by-pass design that would mitigate the traffic impacts. She said there would be an engineered drainage plan, which was outlined in the environmental assessment. PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened to those who wished to speak on the proposal. PROPONENTS Thor Jackola, 1830 3rd Ave. East, spoke as a representative of the subdivision. Jackola said he hoped to have their favor for the project. He said it was a good addition to Kalispell and met a lot of the needs, primarily geared to affordable housing. He said Wilson gave a good presentation and that he and Jim Burton would be happy to answer questions. Jackola stated that, from the report, they would concur with the density issue, saying that having the density level occur there was quite unlikely, but the developers would like to have the opportunity to place the duplexes as they saw fit in the development. He brought up one other issue, the parkland, and said Jim Burton �J would address that issue. Kalispell City -County Planning Board September 12, 2000 Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 11 Ray Delong, 310 Bismark Street, Lone Pine View Estates. Delong said he would also like to see the area zoned as single family instead of duplexes or apartment buildings to keep it as a neighborhood. He said they knew when they bought it would be developed, but thought it would be kept as single units. His other concern was Denver Avenue, which already had a lot of traffic and was not a safe street. He said if the Board opened it up to apartment buildings or duplexes that cars would be a problem. He said he thought other people had the right to have a house, but wanted to see the land go from agriculture to single units instead of apartments and duplexes. Kelli Herman, 1919 Bluestone Drive, spoke against the project. She said she was a homeowner and mother who wanted to elaborate on the affordable housing issue. She said it was a good way to give a family a start as homeowners. She said all of the area, Lone Pine, Ashley Park, and South Meadows had, even though it was zoned R-4, gone with single family. She said it brought a lot of people to the neighborhood who normally wouldn't be able to buy a house. She said because the areas were residential, single family, it didn't make sense to throw in rental units. Her other major concern, as a mother, was the traffic issue. She said the speed limit was 25 miles per hour, but at her house traffic went 35 to 40 miles per hour. She thought homeowners would be more cautious of how they drove. Marvin Vaughn, 116 Denver Avenue, agreed with all of the traffic problems and said there were not enough access places for apartments and duplexes. He said the whole thing was backwards, they should have put apartments in the front when they designed the whole thing and then single family houses in the back to reduce the traffic. He said he didn't think it was a good idea. Natalie Jones, 850 Denver, spoke in opposition stating they moved to the area from a combined neighborhood, like they were looking to create. She said they found there was a lot more traffic then before they built the duplexes. She said the single family homes created a certain amount of flow and duplexes and apartments would increase that. She said the neighborhood they were in was very small and funneling that much traffic through was not good for them or the children. No one else wished to speak and the public hearing was closed. MOTION Sipe moved and Hines seconded to adopt staff report KA-00-6 as findings of fact and recommended to the Kalispell. City Council that the initial zoning upon annexation for the �\l properties be R-4 and RA-1 as proposed in accordance with the J preliminary plat for Stratford Village Subdivision. Kalispell City -County Planning Board September 12, 2000 Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 11 with the density and the flow issue. He suggested limiting the number of duplexes and randomly locating them. Stevens said he didn't have a problem with the apartments and/or duplexes, as they were located and thought they would have less impact on the area than single family homes. He said that the R-4 had developed into affordable housing and had worked out well. There was a brief discussion on zoning in the area and the density issue. Wilson asked the Board to consider that RA-1 zoning required a conditional use permit process and pointed out that the neighbors would have an opportunity to comment. She also said that apartments would require additional parking and it would go through a more strenuous review. She said she would be reluctant to say they would max out the density of the 3.6 acres. There was additional discussion on the density and Wilson came up with an estimated 35 units on the 3.6 acre site. -She said if it were lots they were looking at 20 or 25 additional lots. Stevens thought an ideal solution would be to have a By-pass road that would access the subdivision and asked if the City Council could approach the State about it. Stevens asked if it was written in stone as a no access and Wilson said, yes. Stevens thought it was a solution they should keep in mind. Wilson pointed out that access from the west would require a 60 foot easement through private property because there wasn't a roadway. Johnson asked if Stevens' comment was a recommendation to the City Council and Stevens said that was where he was going with it. Garberg said it came back to the density and traffic issue and he thought the focus should be on that. Wilson pointed out there was access off the By-pass plan for Sunnyside Drive and Woods Lake Road. AMENDED MOTION Garberg moved and Hines seconded to amend the motion to delete the RA-1 request and recommend an initial zoning of R- 4. BOARD DISCUSSION Heinecke stated opposition to the motion. He thought RA-1 would provide low income housing that was desperately needed. He thought the areas were attractive and provided play ground space and community parking. He didn't think it would add to traffic flow, but decrease it instead. Heinecke agreed that single housing should be in the back, but thought it an awkward piece of land and thought apartments would fit it. Stevens stated he was in opposition to it for the same reasons. �) He thought the market demand would restrict duplexes and that overall it aligned with his interest of easing the way for Kalispell City -County Planning Board September 12, 2000 Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 11 it was a big mistake to amend the zoning text and put it on the plat where it wasn't readily available. Rice thought that the person buying the lot wouldn't look at the plat map, which would indicate which lot was designated as duplex, so there wouldn't be any confusion there. He said the possibility for confusion would come in when a developer picked up a piece of R-4 zoning and thought he could put a whole subdivision of duplexes there. Then he would find out he could only put 25%, which would be pointed out along the way by FRDO. He didn't see it as a problem. Johnson asked and Burton answered that it would be hard to designate a certain number of duplex lots because they wouldn't know until they were sold what the owner was building. He agreed with Stevens. Jackola agreed that the zoning regulations were created for a precise purpose and that people read them carefully. He thought it opened an area of contention that was bound to create problems later. Heinecke thought it would cause confusion. Sorenson said that being consistent with the zoning designation was the ideal. He pointed out that it was not uncommon to have private sets of covenants that have different or more restrictive standards. He gave Buffalo Stage as an example where there were different set back requirements. Garberg suggested that, with a strongly split Board, they might consider rewriting and re -proposing the issue so they didn't make a bad decision. He agreed with Stevens, that under the circumstances it could create problems down the road. Johnson commented that there were other vehicles, other than modifying zoning, to accomplish that. He said FRDO and the City Council were not privy, or do not review covenants, but it would be a good place to put it. He said they couldn't force the developer to put it there, but it was an opportunity. ROLL CALL On a roll call vote on the amendment, Garberg, Stevens, Hines, (AMENDMENT) Heinecke, Sipe, and Johnson voted no, and Rice voted aye. The motion failed with 1 in favor and 6 opposed. ROLL CALL On a roll call vote the motion to approve the preliminary plat (MAIN MOTION) passed unanimously. PARK BOTTLING A request by Park Bottling Company for annexation into the COMPANY ANNEXATION City of Kalispell and an initial zoning designation of I-1 on 1 approximately 4.00 acres. Kalispell City -County Planning Board September 12, 2000 Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 11 board meetings. Wilson explained that it worked okay in the County, but there was a problem within the planning jurisdictions because they had two deadlines; one for County applications that would come in under the 45 day deadline, and the City applications that would come in under the 30 day deadline. That would mean two packets; one two weeks before with County information, and another one week before with City information. The question to the Board was, do they support the idea of two deadlines and two packets. Heinecke said he liked the idea, but the result would mean the applicant would be backed up by two weeks and put back another meeting. Garberg said they put them through quite a bit as it was, and charged them quite a bit for it. Stevens said that may be, but he got his packet on Saturday for a meeting on Tuesday and that only gave him a day to work things out. He said the applicant came out better when the Board had more than two days to review, and with five or six agenda items, he thought it was a valid concern. He thought there was value in having information as early as possible. He said he had other things in his life and short notice made it tough to work things in. O Rice agreed it would be nice to have two weeks ahead. He asked if it was a problem administratively. Wilson stated it was a problem and Rice asked if it would be an easier solution to have the City deadline two weeks ahead also and Wilson said she didn't really know. She said it would have to go through an amendment process and go to the Council in order to change the application deadlines. She said they were working on changing the County regulations to 45 days for the County, therefore they would want to change the City as well because FRDO would prefer they be the same, one way or the other. Johnson said the general consensus of the Board was they would gladly accept two weeks on County issues and they would like to recommend the City follow suit. Adding, he would like staff to pursue a text amendment with non- conforming use to be changed to like non -conforming use. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned on a motion by Garberg and seconded by Hines at approximately 9:15 p.m. The next regular meeting will be October 10 t 7:00 p.m. 9Aepprov A. o on, President De s, ecor mg ecre as on, /0/ /0/00 Kalispell City -County Planning Board September 12, 2000 Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 11