12-14-99KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
MINUTES OF MEETING
DECEMBER 14, 1999
CALL TO ORDER AND Jean Johnson called the meeting to order at approximately 7:00
ROLL CALL p.m. Members present were: Jean Johnson, Rob Heinecke, Greg
Stevens, Joe Brenneman, Brian Sipe, Donald Garberg, Don
Mann and Don Hines. Bill Rice was excused. Narda Wilson
represented the Flathead Regional Development Office. There
were approximately people 17 in the audience.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion by Garberg and seconded by Hines the minutes of
the meeting of November 9, 1999 were approved unanimously,
as corrected; changing the signature line to Greg Stevens,
changing Brenneman's comments on page 13 `unless' to
`because'.
GROWTH POLICY Johnson stated that he would amend the agenda, and opened
COMMENT the forum, to allow for public comment of the Growth Policy Plan
as revised and will be presented to the Kalispell City Council
and the Flathead County Commissioners.
Lex Blood, 844 Third Ave. East, stated that he wished to speak
on the revisions of the Growth Policy Plan. He stated that he
was unsure of the reason for allowing another opportunity for
public comment considering that the plan is ready to be passed
on; public input such as it has been and such as it has been
considered is already of public record, but that he appreciated
the opportunity to comment. He added that as far as his
observation there had been no consideration of the public
comment by the board. He stated that he sat on the
Neighborhood and Environment Committee, which was one of
three committees of citizens that the City -County Planning
Board had requested to convene and discuss, and make
recommendations relative to, the Kalispell City -County Master
Plan. His committee met for approximately six months in 1997
and 1998, along with the two other committees. He believed
they were asked to be involved in the process of making
revisions to the master plan. Then members of those
committees sat on a consensus committee, which reviewed their
documents and compiled one comprehensive recommendation.
It was that document that was forwarded to the planning board.
He stated that the board had questioned the reason for little
citizens input. He stated that the board has made substantial
revisions to that document and this new document has not been
significantly circulated to the public. He stated that 30 or 40
people spent approximately 12 months putting together that
consensus report, and by his perception that represents a
significant amount of community and citizen input. It then
came to the board to be reviewed. The fact that 30 or 40 people
didn't come before the board was no indication of their interest,
because they had already spent a year doing that. So he
disagreed that the citizenry did not state their opinions, they are
embodied in that report. He added that the board had
dramatically changed that consensus document, gutted it
without a natural progression and, the visionary aspects of that
plan that call for citizen participation have been removed and
the document has become an ideological statement in his
perception. He said it seems fair to say that, in light of the lack
of consideration of the November 9+h public testimony, which he
attended and there was no discussion by the board on the
public input at that November 9+h meeting. There was a
substantial body of public comments made at that time and he
did not believe the board considered those comments. He
believes that the board had already determined the issue with
the Growth Policy Plan that the board is putting forth. He
stated that he sees it that the board has not considered the
public input, or even the ideas of one of it's own members, and
they entered into an ideological exercise in property rights, even
though the consensus document that came to the board
specifically recognized those rights. He concluded that a
majority of the board is more interested in presenting their
ideology in the Growth Policy Plan than in providing the
planning jurisdiction with a balanced vision of the future. He
stated that ironically the most likely outcome of such an
unbalanced and unrestrained growth policy will be higher taxes,
higher service costs, more traffic congestion, longer travel times,
higher accident rates, a loss of the openness which has been
such an attractive aspect of the Valley, and lessened property
values. In short simply another unattractive, poorly planned,
difficult to manage repetition of blighted urban areas across the
country. So much for leadership, he believes this board has
abdicated their responsibility to the community and he can only
hope that others in positions of responsibility will take their
communal responsibility more seriously. He stated that he has
committed 25 years of himself to a whole variety of community
based efforts to provide a quality of life for this valley and this
community, which he will remain committed to. He feels it is
his responsibility to call it as he sees it and he does not think
what the board has done for the community, in the majority as a
board, will: be something that the community will be proud of in
25 years. It takes planning and a conceptual community vision,
not ideology, to bring about a future that the community will be
happy and proud of. He added that he appreciated the
opportunity and that he does not take it lightly.
Mayre Flowers, representing Citizens for a Better Flathead,
presented written comment and spoke on the Growth Plan
stating that their group had submitted many public comments
to the board, at several times. She stated that she appreciated
_ the opportunity to address this board one more time on this
CJ� policy. Citizens for a Better Flathead is extremely disappointed
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
December 14, 1999 Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 16
in board's lack of consideration of theirs and the other public
comments. Their group plans to continue to make comment
before the governing bodies because they have serious
reservations with the Growth Policy Plan compiled by this board.
She stated that before any plan moves to a public comment
phase there should be extensive town meetings. These, meetings
should feature professional reviews of the economic and quality
of life implications of this plan and the consensus document
recommended by the citizen committees. It should be presented
in a format that allows for extensive public dialogue. It is
appropriate that this document is forwarded to the council and
the commissioners, as it shows the best thinking of this board.
For the same reason they believe it is important for the 1998
consensus document, as well as the public comments on this
plan, to be forwarded because it represents the best thinking of
a large group of citizens within the community.
BOARD COMMENT Stevens stated that he wanted to make one comment for the
record. He stated that the board had a meeting to consider the
public testimony after the November 9+h meeting and, at
Heinecke's insistence, they went over the comments point by
point and did make some changes to the document. So they
certainly did consider public testimony and did make some
minor changes to the text and to the map as a result of the
public testimony. The board did consider the public comments
and he wants that to be a part of the record.
FARRIS PRELIMINARY A request by Andrew Farris for preliminary plat approval of
PLAT Kelsey Subdivision, a 33-lot residential cluster subdivision on
approximately 18 acres in the Evergreen and Vicinity Zoning
District.
Jean Johnson excused himself from the board during
consideration of this application in as much as he and his firm
have given technical assistance to this project.
STAFF REPORT Narda Wilson of the Flathead Regional Development Office gave
a presentation on staff report FPP-99-9 evaluating the proposal.
The property contains approximately 18 acres. The developers
are proposing a cluster subdivision to allow the creation of lots
that are not less than 50 percent of the zoning minimum lot
allowance, provided that the minimum lot requirements are met
by setting aside the difference as common areas. Approximately
15.7 acres are designated for 33 lots and common area. Most of
the lots are slightly over 10,000 square feet. This subdivision
has a single internal access. She stated that the subdivision
road should be relocated to align with Mountain View Drive to
the south as recommended by the Road Department. The road
should include an intersection along with a culvert to address
the floodplain area. The Road Department noted in their letter
that East Reserve Drive -is designated as a minor arterial and
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
December 14, 1999 Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 16
have asked that a 20-foot right-of-way be reserved along the
southern boundary to plan for future improvements. The staff
would prefer to see curb and gutter rather than swales because
( ) of the urban design of the lots.
The southern 250 feet are within the Evergreen Water and Sewer
District boundaries. The developers plan to annex the northern
portion of the site into the Evergreen Water District. The lots
within the sewer district will be served by the Evergreen sewer
system. For the remaining lots to the north that are outside of
the sewer district boundaries, four on -site, community drainfi.eld
systems are proposed be used. The staff has concerns about the
onsite sewage treatment facilities and its correlation to the
Evergreen aquifer. A letter from the Flathead City County Health
Department was received stating that, although they can't
require that this area be on public sewer, it is their opinion that
it should be considering the close proximity to the water/sewer
facilities. Joe Russell director of the department stated to the
staff that this subdivision should be on public sewer as a matter
of public policy. Wilson noted the Evergreen Sewer District is
party to an inter -local agreement with the City which would
either have to be renegotiated or the developer would have a
separate agreement with the City.
She noted that approximately 25% of the lots are either partially
or entirely within the floodplain, stating that if the project were
shifted to the east then those lots could be moved from the
floodplain area. The developers had proposed that the set aside
for common area required under the zoning for cluster
subdivisions should be consider as meeting the requirements for
parkland dedication. Wilson noted there is limited dedication
for pedestrian access to the common areas. Because the
common area is required under zoning Wilson recommended
that one ninth of the area in lots be required for parkland or
cash in lieu of parkland. One variance is needed for the direct
access of proposed Lot 3 directly onto Reserve Drive. It appears
that there are alternatives to that design that would allow this to
be accessed another way. The staff is recommending denial of
the variance request for a residential driveway to be located on
East Reserve Drive be denied; and the preliminary plat be
approved subject to 23 conditions. Wilson presented the board
with a petition signed by 43 Evergreen Community citizens
opposed to the Kelsey Subdivision.
Heinecke asked about the drainage swale and Wilson answered
the Road Department are concerned about a drainage culvert on
the access road.
Stevens asked if the staff saw a better access to the common
_ area and Wilson explained that they had not designed anything,
they just wanted two or three accesses to those areas.
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
December 14, 1999 Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 16
Stevens suggested that some of the lots did not fall in the
floodplain. He asked for the definitions of access road and
residential driveway, Wilson explained that if it serves just one
lot then it is a driveway. Wilson explained that the subdivision
regulations state that there shall not be residential access
directly onto a collector street. Stevens asked about the
parkland requirement. Wilson explained that the zoning
regulations require 20,000 square feet per lot, but a cluster plan
allows for 50% smaller lots if the balance is used a public
common area. It would seem that this zoning requirement does
not fulfill the parkland dedication required under the
subdivision regulations.
Garberg asked how staff would propose the connection of Marty
Way and East Reserve without the developer's losing substantial
lot coverage. Lot 5 would be lost, but Wilson explained, that Lot
5 is entirely within the floodplain anyway.
PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened to those who wished to speak on
the application.
PROPONENTS
John Parson, consultant on the project, submitted the
applicant's findings to allow one lot to access a collector and to
allow a cul-de-sac length in excess of 1,000 feet. He spoke in
favor of the application stating that the responsible agencies
should be allowed to review the project and not to supersede
their authority, to include the Department of Environmental
Quality, the Floodplain Regulations, and the County Sanitation
Department. He stated that there appears to be certain
misconceptions, specific lines taken out of the regulations and
used here. He stated that it is not the best way of looking at
floodplain or environmental regulations. Allow the responsible
agencies to review the project as is, as a final plat with all of the
engineering work. He stated that East Reserve is a collector not
an arterial, but driveway access onto either is not allowed in the
regulations without a variance. He went through the 23
conditions requesting the following amendments:
# 1 - ok
#2 - change prior- to to as necessary (currently there is under
consideration a rather significant change to the zoning
regulations which this project falls under, if these were by
chance approved by the commissioners, a conditional use
permit would not be necessary for this project).
#3 - eliminate the condition in its entirety, (he submitted
applicant findings in support of approval of the variance for the
access of that lot, in order to provide seven lots within the sewer
district, instead of six, Lot 3 would require direct access onto
East Reserve)
#4 - eliminate `curbs, gutters, sidewalks, a five foot landscape
�JJ
boulevard between the sidewalk and curb' on the internal road
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
December 14, 1999 Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 16
system, (drainage works better if you don't try to control it, the
way they have proposed it the water will flow off the impervious
surface of the road right into drainage swales along the side;
( 1 putting in curbs and it starts building up and backing up into
the roadway and is just not as good a design, and this is not a
through road, it is a cul-de-sac, there is no precedent to request
sidewalks for this subdivision; Farris should not be singled out
to provide improvements for everyone)
#5 ok
#6 - eliminate in it's entirety, (maybe it is a good idea as per the
Road Department, however, there are problems with that, if the
condition is placed on them then they are stuck and it may not
be needed; and if this property needs it then all of the properties
down to the highway need it - allow the road department to
create a comprehensive plan and an engineering study that says
80 feet is necessary, this is huge)
#7,8,9&10A
# 11 - amend to read: `Parkland dedication requirement has been
met by the use of open space on this subdivision.' (there is over
seven acres in open space and that's got to count for something)
# 12 - end at `open space area'. 'Flea will be used- as a
herneo<wner' . (the applicant is not proposing a
homeowner's park, by amending # 11 this will not be required)
# 13, 14, 15, ok
# 16 - eliminate in it's entirety, (this condition would finish this
subdivision; the problems with the City and the District Board
have to get straightened out before any subdivision should be
,) required to hook up to the Evergreen Sewer District; the district
has said that they are not willing to expand the district; Kalispell
has stated that they are not willing to increase Evergreen's
allocation, so that's it.)
#17-ok
# 18 - will serve letter should be from the water district
# 19 - eliminate, as it is not necessary, (allow the floodplain
regulations to work by themselves and for this project, don't try
to supercede and inject your opinion, with only partial
information regarding floodplain regulations onto this
subdivision, and in #20 you have to get a floodplain permit)
#20, 21, 22, 23 ok
Parsons presented applicant findings to support the request to
amend the conditions. He stated that this is a good design and
staff agrees that it meets the zoning requirements; he asked that
the board not usurp the authority of the responsible agencies.
Allow Lot 3 one access, the lot as it sits now has a right to one
access off of Reserve Drive.
Garberg asked if in condition 18 the `will serve letter'
should be water not sewer district. Parsons explained that
it is not necessary to include sewer service, he does not
want it misconstrued that the whole subdivision would
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
December 14, 1999 Meeting Minutes
Page 6 of 16
hook up to the sewer; either strike the whole paragraph or
strike `sewer'. This would eliminate possible confusion.
(� Jean Johnson spoke in favor of the application stating that the
developers are proposing individual septic tanks as the primary
treatment, the effluent gray water will go to the drainfield. They
propose this for the reason that the DEQ would not allow single
treatment. Meaning that the second treatment, the sand filter,
will cut the drainfields by half, and the pollutants by half. This
is a sewage treatment system.
Garberg asked and was answered that the sewer system
and sand system would last, subject to failure, it should
have the same life expectancy as any drain field.
Heinecke asked and was answered that 60 to 70 percent of
the homes in the district are on individual systems that are
tied into the district through pressure lines.
OPPONENTS Fay Skyles, 161 East Reserve, stated that she is not opposed to
the subdivision but does have questions, will the drainfields
force them to hook into the water district, their wells are 40 feet
deep and would this effect their water quality, the floodplain is
another concern, is this going to have to be filled in. It was half
full three years ago; this would cause problems if this happened
again because it was filled. Some of the concerns have been
answered but there are other neighbors that are concerned
about the drainfields, they feel they were forced to be put on the
sewer system, and why isn't this subdivision, it's right across
the street, why aren't they being forced to connect. The road is
unsafe for children, the school children would go to Helena
Flats, not Evergreen, which is already over populated. She is
not opposed to a subdivision; but at this point this subdivision
should further consider the floodplain and the drainfields. They
know that something is going to happen there but they want to
see it done well, and filling in the floodplain is not the answer.
Stevens interjected that this board does not have technical
expertise; they rely on the responsible agencies to make sure
that the water, sewer and septic system requirements are
met. He added that any development in the floodplain
requires a floodplain permit, which would not be allowed if
problems exist.
Skyles also cited concern over the type of buildings put in the
subdivision, they would like a conformity throughout the area,
the area has a lot of nice homes and they would ask that
appropriate homes are put in so that it would not devalue their
property.
Stevens spoke in favor of the subdivision showing on the map
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
December 14, 1999 Meeting Minutes
Page 7 of 16
where the open space would be in comparison to the
adjoining subdivision. He explained that if the board denies
the subdivision then the area would end up with homes all
(� along there. He stated that he considers what could happen
in an area when deciding whether to recommend approval or
denial. The alternative to this subdivision could be much
worse. If sewer and water served this area the whole density
would be changed.
Vicky Pointer, 600 Granite View Drive, has concerns over the
drainfields and that the adjoining owners would smell it, and
that their properties would not be flooded because of the
coverage and fill made from this subdivision. After listening
tonight some of their concerns were addressed.
Skyles also asked about the setbacks on the lots that would
abut their property.
Parson answered that setbacks should be left to the planning
office for enforcement and regulation.
Stevens stated that he seemed to have let this meeting get a
little out of hand but he likes to let the public know more and
that the possibilities are sometimes worse than what they
have before them.
Sipe asked if Johnson could answer the girls' questions
about the drainfield and Johnson explained that there would
be a 500 foot mixing zone that follows the way the water
flows and they are required to keep this within the zone of
influence, it will have gone through three treatments, and
there would be no odor, it is all underground.
No one else wished to speak and the public hearing was closed.
BOARD DISCUSSION Brenneman asked the developers to explain the reason for not
redesigning the road access.
Parsons explained that the design would be flipped if Lot 3 had
Reserve Road access, they could have the same number of lots
in the sewer district even if they change the configuration. He
meant that this lot would be in alignment with other lots with
direct access and moving the lot to have access off of Reserve
would put it next to the Granite View subdivision. The standard
floodplain development permit provides for fill to get it out of the
floodplain, and that fill will not change the floodplain
determination.
Parson's stated that the developers didn't see it (the traffic
generation) as a significant issue, and if it were a significant
issue then the subdivision regulations should address that, and
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
December 14, 1999 Meeting Minutes
Page 8 of 16
the subdivision regulations say that it is fine.
Brenneman asked if the subdivision regulations ever require
(\ consideration of properties across the street?
Wilson explained that the purpose of the subdivision regulations
is to take into consideration the transportation elements in the
area. Staff question that if the location of that road is not a big
concern for the developer why it would not be moved to align
with Mountain View. The subdivision regulations state that the
subdivision shall take into consideration the "continuation of
streets onto adjacent subdivision unless there is a justification
for an alternative design". So staff sees the roadway alignment
as a specific concern.
Parson stated that this subdivision complies with subdivision
regulations.
Brenneman stated that the purpose of the board is to look at the
regulations and ask how does this design fit in with the rest of
the community. Otherwise there would be no need for the
board. The board should give consideration to the affect as they
see it, which is their purpose.
Stevens stated that he does not see the advantage in having the
two streets align, there is not a lot of traffic and it is not a
through street, so the roads don't need to be lined up.
Breneman stated that in light of the suggestions by the
developer that the board should let the departments in charge of
certain aspects make those decisions, meaning that the board is
not qualified, the recommendation that they have on record from
the Flathead County Road and Bridge Department is that those
two roads be lined up. So it seems that the board is in a
dilemma if that is what the board is going to go by.
Stevens stated that the board would have to rewrite the report
whether the board wants to recommend approval and change
the conditions, or recommend denial. The way he visualizes this
is if the board going to let Mr. Farris use his property for
residential purposes in accordance with the different regulations
or are they going to tell him "No, we are not going to let you use
your property in accordance with these regulations because
we're going to decide that it is unsafe or unhealthy to do that".
And his contention all along is that the board does not have the
expertise to make that decision. So we all understand that the
subdivision should be on water and sewer but the City is not
going to allow it, so it isn't going to be. For us to call this
premature is fine but Mr. Farris will be dead and gone before
C anything is resolved with the City and the District. So they will
have to rely on the agencies regulations to take care of those
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
December 14, 1999 Meeting Minutes
Page 9 of 16
problems, as it is obvious that he cannot get sewer there.
Sipe stated that he does not have a problem with the
subdivision, this looks like the best of the alternatives to what
could come in there. He sees the staff conditions as being
designed to kill the subdivision. He stated that he has to go
along with the developers recommendations, a lot of them they
do not have a choice on anyway and neither does FRDO, it's not
their job or the boards job to decide the sewer or the other
things.
Heinecke asked for a motion before they go through the
recommendations and make findings.
Garberg stated that Johnson did a good job of answering the
questions on the environmental issues, but he could not keep
up with the recommended changes and he couldn't vote on that
yet.
Stevens stated that the board should go through the
recommended conditions and amendments individually and
develop findings that align with those conditions.
Hines stated that he sees the whole process as getting out of line
for this evening and couldn't they table this to a special meeting
or bring it up next month in a revised version that has been
thought through properly instead of having it being muddled by
C� two sides.
Wilson stated that this is the proper process and the proper
forum. The developer anticipates a certain track when they
submit their application. If the board, with the developers
permission want to continue this to the end of the meeting to
allow the issues to be addressed then that would be a good
route to go. There should not be that much time involved, they
should try to make the changes in conditions, and findings
tonight.
Garberg stated that he agreed that time is not going to allow
them to go through this properly.
Stevens stated that they should get through it tonight, at the
end of the meeting. He stated that there are five other
applicants that are waiting and it irritates him that he does not
think there should be these big agenda meetings. He does not
think that it is fair to the people in attendance and in that light
he agrees that it should be put off to the end of the meeting.
Parsons stated that the developers did not have a problem with
continuing to the ending of the meeting or to another meeting.
If the board wants a clean copy of his findings then he could get
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
December 14, 1999 Meeting Minutes
Page 10 of 16
them to the board before the next meeting.
Stevens stated that he is tired of these meetings that go on past
(� 10:30 p.m. and that it is a disservice to the people that come to
\- the hearings.
MOTION Heinecke moved that this application be tabled until they get
written copy of the developer's requests for changes in
conditions and findings, seconded by Garberg. On a roll call
vote: Hines, Garberg, Heinecke, Sipe and Stevens voted Aye.
Mann and Brenneman voted No. The motion to table passed on
a vote of five in favor and two opposed.
Wilson explained that the packet goes out on the 4+h January
for the meeting on the 11th and they would need Parsons'
information by that time.
Johnson returned to his seat on the board.
TELMON, INC ZONE A request by Telmon, Inc. for a zone change from R-3 to R-5 on
CHANGE approximately 2.0 acres west of North Meridian Road on the
north side of Three Mile Drive in Kalispell.
STAFF REPORT Narda Wilson of the Flathead Regional Development Office gave
a presentation on staff report KZC-99-6 in which staff
C� recommends approval of the requested zone change. This is
about a two -acre parcel. This is a transitional neighborhood.
The area is a hodgepodge of zoning and development. In looking
at what zoning might be compatible with the area and comply
with the master plan designation and meet the applicants needs
R-5 or RA-3 would be the most appropriate designations. R-5
allows for more office uses. This is in reasonable compliance
with the designated uses. With the other zoning in the area this
seems like a reasonable request. She does not believe that this
is spot zoning because it is consistent with other uses in the
area.
PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened to those who wished to speak on
the application.
PROPONENTS Mike Himsel, representing Telmon, spoke in favor of the
application stating that they are looking for a spot for office
uses. Their office personnel currently numbers five persons,
and this would not conflict with the area or cause any
detriment.
No one else wished to speak and the public hearing was closed.
BOARD DISCUSSION Stevens stated that he is in favor of the application.
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
December 14, 1999 Meeting Minutes
Page 11 of 16
Garberg asked and Wilson answered that there are height limits
in the zoning designation and it is generally a low impact office
-� district.
Heinecke asked and was answered that the owner is in favor of
the zone change.
MOTION Mann moved and Sipe seconded to adopt staff report KZC-99-6
as findings of fact and, based on these findings recommend to
the Kalispell City Council that the requested zone change from
R-3 to R-5 be granted. On a roll call vote all members voted
Aye. The motion to recommend approval of the zone change
passed unanimously.
NORTHWEST HEALTH A request by Northwest Healthcare for a conditional use permit
CARE CONDITIONAL to allow the construction of a new central plant facility for the
USE PERMIT Kalispell Regional Medical Center in an H-1 zoning district.
STAFF REPORT Narda Wilson gave a presentation on staff report KCU-99-10 in
which staff recommends that the conditional use permit be
granted subject to conditions. She stated that there has been a
change in the parking lot design and referenced a modified
design submitted at the meeting. The request meets the
requirements under the evaluation criteria. This project should
have moderate impacts to the neighborhood. Wilson
recommended amending the conditions to include condition *4.
The developers either eliminate the lot line or complete a re-
determination of the zoning for the lot line through the Kalispell
Zoning Administrator.
PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened to those who wished to speak in
favor of the petition.
PROPONENTS David Greer spoke in favor of the application stating that this is
a very important building to the hospital and Northwest
Healthcare. The applicants agreed to the conditions as outlined
in the report and amended by staff.
No one else wished to speak and the public hearing was closed.
BOARD DISCUSSION Garberg asked and Greer answered that the additional condition
would not change the delay time that they are going to see, there
will have to be a determination completed regardless of the
board's actions.
Wilson stated that this is a zoning compliance issue and that
this condition is in no way meant to cause a hardship for the
applicant.
The zoning administrator stated that is working on this matter
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
December 14, 1999 Meeting Minutes
Page 12 of 16
and should be able to have a determination sent by next week.
MOTION Sipe moved and Heinecke seconded to adopt staff report KCU-
99-10 as findings of fact and, based on these findings,
recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the conditional use
permit be granted subject to the three conditions as outlined in
the staff report. On a roll call vote all members voted Aye. The
motion to recommend approval of the conditional use permit
passed unanimously.
SOMMERS LAND CO. / A request by Somers Land Co. for annexation of Ashley Park
ASHLEY PARK PHASE Phase III into the city of Kalispell and initial zoning of R-4 for
III ANNEXATION approximately 8.44 acres
STAFF REPORT Narda Wilson gave a presentation on staff report KA-99-7 in
which staff recommends initial zoning of R-4, a Residential
District, upon annexation into the City of Kalispell. Ashley Park
Phase III is ready to go to final plat and the staff has gone
through the evaluation criteria. The annexation and final plat
would be submitted to council together.
Johnson asked if the South Kalispell Rural Fire Department had
a problem, and Wilson stated that they had not commented and
so she did not know if they had a problem with it.
PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened and no one wished to speak and
0 the public hearing was closed.
BOARD DISCUSSION There was no board discussion.
MOTION Stevens moved and Garberg seconded to adopt staff report KA-
99-7 as imdings of fact and, based on these findings,
recommend initial zoning of R-4, a Residential zone, upon
annexation into the city of Kalispell. On a roll call vote all
members voted Aye. The motion to recommend initial zoning of
R-4 passed unanimously.
BUFFALO CHIP A request by Buffalo Chip Partners for annexation of Buffalo
PARTNERS Stage Phase IV into the city of Kalispell and initial zoning of RA -
ANNEXATION AND 1 for approximately 5.58 acres.
INITIAL ZONING
STAFF REPORT Narda Wilson of the Flathead Regional Development Office gave
a presentation on staff report KA-99-6 in which staff
recommends initial zoning of RA-1, Low Density Residential
Apartment upon annexation.
Heinecke asked if it was near Edgerton School and was
answered yes.
C1/ PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened and no one wished to speak and
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
December 14, 1999 Meeting Minutes
Page 13 of 16
O
the public hearing was closed.
BOARD DISCUSSION There was no board discussion.
MOTION Stevens moved and Brenneman seconded to adopt staff report
KA-99-6 as findings of fact and, based on these findings,
recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the initial zoning
for Buffalo Stage Phase IV should be RA-1, Low Density
Residential Apartment, upon annexation. On a roll call vote all
members voted Aye. The motion to recommend initial zoning of
RA-1 passed unanimously. .
RINKE ANNEXATION A request by Robert Rinke for annexation of property into the
AND INITIAL ZONING city of Kalispell and initial zoning of RA-1 for approximately .82
acres.
STAFF REPORT Narda Wilson gave a presentation on staff report KA-99-8 in
which staff recommends initial zoning of RA-1, Low Density
Residential Apartment, upon annexation into the city of
Kalispell.
Mann questioned if there was an access issue and Wilson
explained that there was not, explaining that there is a 40-foot
access and at review it was determined that they will have have
a turn around for the fire department.
PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened to those who wished to speak on
the application.
PROPONENTS Jeff Larsen spoke in favor of the application stating that the
applicants agree with staff and stated that it is a good thing to
develop with infill when possible.
No one else wished to speak and the public hearing was closed.
BOARD DISCUSSION There was no discussion.
MOTION Hines moved and Sipe seconded to adopt staff report KA-99-8 as
findings of fact and, based on these findings, recommend to the
Kalispell City Council that the initial zoning should be RA-1,
Low Density Residential Apartment, upon annexation into the
city of Kalispell. On a roll call vote all members voted Aye. The
motion to recommend initial zoning of RA-1 passed
unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS Johnson asked if the members could get new zoning regulations
books and Wilson said yes.
OLD BUSINESS: Heinecke stated that he feels that the public again slammed the
KALISPELL CITY- board, because they did not understand the actions of the board
COUNTY GROWTH and he believes that if the public gets a chance to read the
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
December 14, 1999 Meeting Minutes
Page 14 of 16
POLICY PLAN; growth policy plan they will agree with the board.
Garberg moved and Heinecke seconded that the board adopt the
i Growth Policy Plan.
Brenneman asked that the board deny the plan or at least
present the draft consensus document as presented to the
board along with the growth policy plan. He stated that he
will vote against the board's plan and encouraged the other
members to do likewise.
Sipe clarified that only the board's recommendation will be
presented to the council and commissioners.
Garberg recommended that the board members should
attend the council and commissioners' meetings to present
the plan.
On a roll call vote: Mann, Garberg, Stevens, Hines, Heinecke,
Sipe and Johnson voted Aye. Brenneman voted No. The motion
to adopt the Growth Policy Plan passed on a vote of seven in
favor and one opposed.
Brenneman moved and Heinecke seconded to present the 1998
consensus document at the same time as this boards' plan.
Heinecke stated that it would be a part of the information
presented.
Stevens thinks that it is inappropriate and this is the only
body that can present a plan and to send along a document
that has no bearing would be wrong.
Brenneman stated that the relevance in sending it along is
that it contrasts very clearly with what the public committees
presented and what the board is presenting.
On a roll call vote: Brenneman voted Aye. Mann, Garberg,
Stevens, Hines, Heinecke, Sipe and Johnson voted No. The
motion to present the 1998 consensus document failed on a vote
of seven to one against.
Stevens commended the board on their job and stated that he
was specifically very glad that Johnson was here to keep this
thing moving.
Johnson stated that he has all of the documents on the master
plan if anyone would like to see them, and he appreciated the
board for their comments and work on this matter.
Sipe moved and Hines seconded to adopt Resolution KMPA-99-1
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
December 14, 1999 Meeting Minutes
Page 15 of 16
as attached, fixing typo, and forward a recommendation to the
Kalispell City Council and the Board of County Commissioners
for approval of the Kalispell City -County Growth Policy Plan
dated November 23, 1999. On a roll call vote: Mann, Garberg,
Stevens, Hines, Heinecke, Sipe and Johnson voted Aye.
Brenneman voted No. The motion to adopt the resolution and
forward a recommendation of approval passed on a vote of seven
in favor and one opposed.
Hines thanked everyone for their input on the board.
ADJOURNMENT The next regular meeting will be January 11, 1000 at 7 p.m.
The meeting was adjourned by motion at approximately10:35
p.m.
Approved as submitte corrected/It/99
0 1-
Tricia L ske, Re rding Secretary
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
December 14, 1999 Meeting Minutes
Page 16 of 16