Loading...
10-15-97u>ALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING OCTOBER 15, ] 997 Workshop on Master There was a workshop session scheduled at 6:30 p.m. on the Master Plan Update Plan. Steve Kountz gave an update on the progress of the survey, committees, and the scoping meeting. CALL TO ORDER The regularly scheduled meeting of the Kalispell City -County Planning AND ROLL CALL Board and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Board members present were Walter Bahr, Robert Sanders, Milt Carlson, Jean Johnson, Pam Kennedy, Mike Conner, Joe Brenneman, and Robert Lopp. Therese Hash was absent (excused). The Flathead Regional Development Office was represented by Steve Kountz, Senior Planner and Narda Wilson, Senior Planner. There were approximately 30 people in the audience. APPROVAL OF The minutes of the meeting of September 9, 1997 were approved as MINUTES written on a motion by Conner, second by Brenneman. OAnnouncement / The public hearing on the request by Paul J. Stokes and Associates on RINKE ZONE behalf of Robert Rinke and John Coziahr for a zone change from R-1 to CHANGE / R-2 on property located north of West Evergreen Drive on the west side Postponement of Kings Way, has been postponed until the November meeting on the request of the applicant. FIRST SECURITY The first public hearing was introduced on a request by First Security BANK ZONE Bank of Kalispell for a zone change from the current B-1, Neighborhood CHANGE / FROM Buffer district, to B-3, Community Business district. The property B-1 TO B-3 proposed for a zone change contains approximately 1.48 acres out of an approximate 2.35 acre parcel, located on the northwest corner of Meridian Road and Two Mile Drive, and can be described as the east 362 feet of Assessor's Tract 5CD in Section 12, T 28 N, R 22 W, P.M.M., Flathead County. Staff Report Wilson gave a presentation of report #KZC-97-3, which evaluated the request according to the statutory criteria for a change in zoning. On the basis of the findings, staff recommended the zone be changed from B-1 to B-3. _ Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor. �� In Favor Bruce Lutz, representing Great Northern Bank Shares, spoke in favor. We feel this is a very reasonable request, conforming to the neighborhood plan, the adjacent current uses and the trends of uses in that area. This is not a significantly different use than those permitted in the B-1 zone. It just happens that banks are not included in B-1. We feel we can provide a real service by locating a bank here. With the assisted living units and the residential flavor of some of the neighborhood, and we can cater to walk in traffic. The bank will fit in nicely with the infrastructure improvements slated for that area. David Dachs, 335 Summit Ridge Drive, spoke in favor because it will be much more convenient for myself. I have a business at 1874 Highway 93 North, which is close to the intersection of Highway 93 and Meridian. It is a hassle to drive into town for bank business every day on Highway 93, which is hectic, at best. John Zauner, 810 7u1 Ave E, and have a business at 1011 Highway 2 West across from the fairgrounds, and it appears to me there is a need for a financial institution closer to that area, with the possible expansion of Gateway West Mall and the surrounding area. Robert Bracken, Greenwood Trailer Park, visits the post office daily and shops at Buttrey's, and it would make sense to have a financial institution close to those facilities, to avoid the downtown traffic situation. Helen Weber, Glenwood Drive, spoke in favor on behalf of many of the senior citizens that live out there. A bank would be great for all of us. Bank buildings are always very nice looking and would be good for the area. Alan Ruby, 320 Hilltop, was in favor of this zone change. It doesn't seem to be a significant change in the use, and would certainly help in my daily commute. And my son going to the high school, it helps him from driving any more than he has to. Mary Ruby, 320 Hilltop, said that my husband is a small business owner and banks at First Security. Years ago, John very conveniently relocated his downtown bank just a block from where we lived. Since then, we have moved to North Ridge, and now I'm glad he is going to relocate another bank close by. It makes it convenient for us to do our banking. It is a beautiful plan. Gene Lard, 3001 South Main, a commercial appraiser, and we were called upon to talk with property owners in the area. I agree with the Jstaff report. Based on the growth in the area and different housing projects going up, and what is already on Meridian, the zone change will 2 �! not have a detrimental effect, and will enhance the neighborhood. John King, 134 North Haven Drive, president of First Security Bank, acting as agent for Great Northern Bankshares, was in favor. The proposed financial facility will provide many services to the residents and businesses in that area of town. The facility and surrounding landscaping will beautify that corner. It will generate more tax dollars for the City of Kalispell, than does the present vacant lot. It will promote convenience for a great number of people who live and work on this side of town. The presence of a financial facility in the neighborhood will further establish the viability of commercial properties in this area and promote our community. We request that you grant the zone change. A.J. King, Senior Vice President of First Security Bank, which is a locally owned, independent, community bank. All decisions are made here and the Board of Directors are citizens of the area. Competition is tough in this area, and we thought this would be the best place. It is in the City of Kalispell, and as a board member of the Kalispell Development Corporation, we are trying to keep Kalispell intact. With the post office there, and possibly a bank, it creates a real lure for other businesses coming into the area. I hope you vote in favor. Sterling Rigg, 132 Fairway Blvd, said he is a Director of First Security Bank. I believe this building will an asset to that locality, and I don't think that a bank would be any more objectionable than those businesses already allowed in the B-1. No one else spoke either in favor or in opposition to the zone change. The public hearing was closed and it was opened to Board discussion. Board Discussion Lopp expressed concern about the need for adjustments from having two zoning districts on a single parcel. Wilson answered that she encourages the applicant to consider a subdivision or boundary line adjustment, but we have no mechanism to require that to be done. Lopp commented on the changes he has seen on that site, and is glad to see the bank come in. They have a good reputation. The key issue on that corner is going to be the access points, as it is already a busy intersection. Narda commented that the preliminary design presented to the Site �) Review Committee by Bruce Lutz was very well thought out. It reduces left hand turns onto Meridian by making it one-way. There will an access 3 n on Two Mile Drive and Glenwood, which takes into consideration that busy corner. It will be very pedestrian friendly, as well. Motion Bahr moved to adopt staff report #KZC-97-3 as findings of fact and recommend to City Council the requested zone change from B-1 to B-3 be granted. Conner seconded. On a roll call vote, the motion carried on a unanimous vote in favor. AMENDED PLAT Kennedy introduced the next public hearing on a request by Sands BUFFALO STAGE Surveying, Inc. on behalf of Penco of Montana, Inc. for preliminary plat PHASE I, approval of a 24 lot single family subdivision on 5.85 acres. The LOTS IT-12T / subdivision is a replatting of 12 four unit townhouse lots which were PRELIMINARY previously approved for 48 townhouses in the Buffalo Stage Subdivision PLAT Phase I. This proposal will amend the previously approved subdivision lots to single family lots. The property is described as Lot IT through 12T Buffalo Stage Phase I, in Sections 31 and 32, T 29 N, R 21 W, P.M.M., Flathead County. Staff Report Wilson presented an overview of report #KPP-97-2. With a variance which was granted from the minimum lot width on October 7t`, the preliminary plat meets all the necessary requirements and was recommended for conditional approval. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened. Eric Smith, representing Penco of Montana, Inc., who purchased Buffalo .Stage Subdivision Phase I, and had options, which they did not exercise on Phases II and III. The original concept behind their purchase of this from Buffalo Chip partners, was to build a large number of single family residences in Phase I on the 45 lots, and build 48 townhouses on these lots that were already approved. The market was not what they thought it was. They were not able to sell as many homes as quickly as they wanted to. They decided, based on my recommendation, that the best way to sell the lots would be to decrease the density, sell 24 lots as single family residential, rather than 48 units. A number of people who bought lots in Buffalo Stage Subdivision had concerns about townhouses being built there. I am glad to be involved in real estate deals where we lower the density. I think it is a nice change. Kathy Quint, 116 Buffalo Stage, spoke in favor of this project. I think that single family homes would fit much better in this neighborhood and the River View Greens neighborhood to the south. When my husband and I looked at homes in that area, we were a little hesitant, because we understood the area had been approved for townhouses. But, we found 4 �1 out through our realtor that this change would be coming, so it helped us to make the decision to buy in that area. We like the community and I think the single family homes would be a much better fit. No one else spoke either in favor or in opposition to the project. The public hearing was closed and the meeting opened to Board discussion. Board Discussion Lopp commented that an additional proponent would be School District 95, because one of their concerns was the number of potential students in an already loaded school community. I am pleased to see the density reduced. Single family, by its nature, is more stable, and being directly next to the school, provides a better environment for the school. The Board agreed that this was a clean proposal. Motion Carlson moved that the Kalispell City -County Planning Board adopt the findings of fact in report #KPP-97-2 and recommend that City Council approve preliminary plat for Amended Plat of Buffalo Stage Phase I, Lots 1T-12T, to be known as Buffalo Square Subdivision, subject to the five (5) conditions. Johnson seconded. On a roll call vote the motion carried unanimously in favor. -/ IMMANUEL The next public hearing was introduced on a request by David Meredith LUTHERAN HOME on behalf of Immanuel Lutheran Home for a conditional use permit to CONDITIONAL allow an expansion of the existing facility including a 12 bedroom USE PERMIT expansion and a new entryway into the existing facility. The property is zoned H-1, Hospital, which lists nursing homes as a conditionally permitted use. The property is on Crestline Avenue, and can be described as Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Highland Park Addition, in Section 7, T28N, R21W, P.M.M., Flathead County. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor. In Favor Dave Meredith, representative for Immanuel Lutheran Home, was hired to design the expansion for the nursing home facility. He explained the design, and the need for the service. No one else spoke either in favor or in opposition to the project. The public hearing was closed and opened to Board discussion. Motion Conner moved to adopt staff report #KCU-97-7 as findings of fact and recommend City Council grant the conditional use permit subject to the four conditions. Bahr seconded. On a roll call vote the motion carried �) on an 8-0 vote in favor. BUFFALO The next public hearing was on a request by Montana Planning COMMONS Consultants on behalf of Northwest Health Care for preliminary plat PHASE II / approval of Buffalo Commons, Phase II, a 35-unit townhouse PRELIMINARY subdivision on 8.44 acres which is part of a mixed use Planned Unit PLAT Development known as Buffalo Commons, approved in June of 1995. The property is located in the northern portion of the development which lies east of Highway 93 North and north of Heritage Way. The property can be described as Assessor's Tract 2DCEA and 7ETG in Section 6, T28N, R22E, P.M.M., Flathead County. Staff Report Wilson gave an overview of report #KPP-97-3, with a recommendation for 10 conditions of preliminary plat approval. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor. In Favor David Greer, representing Northwest Healthcare, spoke in favor. This has already been discussed when the Planned Unit Development was approved. The zoning for this area has been RA-1, for at least 10 years, which would allow 60 townhouse units, on that piece of property. We are proposing 35 total. We are trying to design it, so that it appeals to senior citizens. These will be townhouse units. They will not be apartments or rentals. He briefly described the proposal. He requested that Conditions 42 and 95 be clarified to reference public streets and not the private roads. No one else spoke in favor. The public hearing was opened to those opposed. Opposition Dave Logan, 119 Indian Trail Road, a single family residence. I would Eke to use the same ammunition that was used for Buffalo Stage — the market for these lots is poor, and single family residences are more stable. This surrounds four single family houses with multi -family housing, which is detrimental to our property values. I have already filed a protest on my property taxes, because of this subdivision behind us. I have been involved in planning, in fire prevention and in real estate, and I have yet to find a definition for a townhouse. That tells me you can build anything you like and call it a townhouse. I think the same thing holds true here as what was said for Buffalo Stage, as to why they want it changed from multi -family to single family. No one else spoke in opposition. The public hearing was closed and it was opened for Board discussion. Board Discussion Carlson commented on the surrounding development in this area, and felt this was a well thought out project. Since he has to look at this 6 development, he is glad to see the reduced density and single story buildings. Lopp brought up the issue that was brought up in the presentation that these are being targeted for retired people, which immediately raises a red flag. Greer explained that he thinks because of the way this is designed, it will appeal to the retired clientele, being as they are single story. There is no intention of limiting a particular group. Anyone wishing to purchase a unit is welcome. Mr. Logan's concerns were addressed. That particular piece of property has been under a great deal of discussion for a long time. The Planned Unit Development was approved for a mixture of commercial, single family and multi -family. Mr. Greer's concerns were addressed, and conditions #2 and #5 were modified to add the phrase "public roadways". Motion Lopp moved that the Kalispell City -County Planning Board adopt staff report #KPP-97-3 as findings of fact and recommend to City Council that preliminary plat for -Buffalo Commons Phase H be approved subject to the 10 conditions as amended. Carlson seconded. On a roll call vote the motion carried on an 8-0 vote in favor. Conflict of Interest Jean Johnson declared a conflict of interest on the following agenda item and stepped down from the Board. Pam Kennedy declared a conflict as she is an employee of Nupac Pack & Co., a competitor of McElroy & Wilken. By consensus of the Board, she remained to chair the meeting, but will not enter into Board discussion or vote on the matter. McELROY & The next public hearing was introduced on a request by Paul J. Stokes WILKEN ZONE and Associates on behalf of McElroy & Wilken, Inc., for a zone change CHANGE / FROM on approximately 2.83 acres from the current R-4, Two Family R-4 TO R-1 Residential to R-1, a Suburban Residential. The parcel is located between 9'h Avenue EN and 10t" Avenue EN, north of their northernmost boundaries and is bordered ont he south and west by the Kalispell city limits, and can be described as Assessor's Tract 3OI, Section 8 T28N, R21W, P.M.M., Flathead County. Staff Report Wilson gave a thorough presentation of report #FZC-97-7. This zone change request was evaluated in accordance with the statutory criteria, and recommended for denial. 7 Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor. In Favor Jean Johnson, with Paul J. Stokes and Associates, representing McElroy & Wilken, on this request. This came before the Board and the Commissioners last summer with the request to extend the I-2 designation into this tract of land. After the hearings on that request, the applicant withdrew their petition in consideration of the adjacent neighbors concern for the objectionable development. With this petition, the applicant ,is proposing to create a transitional zone between R-4 and the existing I-2. One of the major complaints of the original petition was that they did not want a factory next door. In consideration of that, the applicant looked at rather than having another 20 families living next door to a factory, this will reduce it down to 2 families. I take exception to two issues in the staff report. One, the county master plan designates that it is an urban area, and in essence says it is marginally in compliance. Historically, the purpose of the master plan is to maximize density. Historically, whenever anyone has come before the Board in consideration of minimizing what has already been maximized, they have felt it was favorable. The other exception is to item #8. In there it says "the zone change may not give adequate consideration to the suitability of this property for the proposed zoning district, because it allows gravel pits..." Within this application, there is no factual data that says they intend to have a gravel pit. There are 20 other conditionally permitted uses in the R-1. Based on that, I recommend that the Board delete that portion, because there is no factual data for that. I would also ask that you do the same in the summary. No one else spoke in favor. The public hearing was opened to those opposed. Opposition Kratrina Keiger, 496 9`h Avenue EN, on behalf of my husband and myself, I request that the petition filed by Paul J. Stokes and Associates on behalf of McElroy & Wilken, be denied. What they address in this petition is an attempt to make it appear as though they withdrew the original petition out of consideration for the adjacent neighbors. This is a falsehood. It was withdrawn because of our determination to block it at all costs. That determination still exists. Whatever way they decide to go, R-1 does not change anything. Their only reason for the R-1 is an attempt to obtain a conditional use permit for a gravel pit. The ultimate outcome for the surrounding neighbors will be the same. We will be forced to live with the noise, dust, etc., only closer. We will be faced with depreciation of our property that we have all received reappraisals from the State within the last 6 weeks. I don't know about the other neighbors, but mine took a big jump. Nothing has changed. They over- 8 mined the existing pit abutting the subject property. Now they need the subject property to cut their costs for reclamation, and extend the life of the existing pit, which will put more money in their pocket. We will have to live with the increase in property taxes, and the depreciation of property values because of the extension of the pit. I beg you to please deny this petition on behalf of the neighbors, and the ultimate impact that this petition will have on us. Sharon Copeland, 560 9th Avenue EN, west of the subject property. I am here again, as I was on June 10t" I have the same concerns as before. I have a well on the subject property. No one from McElroy & Wilkin or Paul Stokes and Associates have approached us about the well. I have concerns about my well if they purchase this property and continue to mine it. We know that is why they are asking for the R-1. We ask that you deny this to save the neighborhood. Clara Ellen Anderson, 484 8th Avenue EN, was here and talked at the meeting in June, too. I am against this zone change. All my concerns were stated before. They haven't changed. I have noticed since that meeting that there has been a build up of dirt around the entire premises. They are in the process of putting a chain link fence around it. I have lived there for 30 years, and I have ' never observed anyone doing anything bad to their property. I feel like the gravel is getting bigger and deeper. They want to go further in, and I don't think it has any positive results for our neighborhood. I urge that you deny this zone change. James Bower, 955 E Oregon St, for 30 years. This was a nice, cozy community when I first moved there. Over the years, as the hills went down to the north and east, we started getting more wind, more dust, and noise. It will be a detriment to our neighborhood. I really do think they plan to expand their gravel pit, and I don't need a gravel pit outside my back door. Gladys Milam, 10th Avenue EN, this would be right in my back yard, on the north and east. I have a lot of beautiful trees and things that I love. They are going to ruin it. I am very opposed to it. No one else spoke in opposition. The public hearing was closed and it was opened to Board discussion. Board Discussion Brenneman asked about the conditional use permit process. Wilson said that conditional use permits in the county go before the County Board of Adjustment, which is a quasi-judicial board. Their decisions can only be appealed to District Court. The Commissioners 9 ' ? would not review the conditional use permit. They would take final action on the zone change request. Brenneman commented that as brought up, there is no indication that the intention is to put a gravel pit there. How much are we allowed to consider what is obviously intended, without it being stated? Lopp spoke to that, because earlier we did exactly that in changing a zone on the corner of Meridian and Two Mile Drive. If we looked only at changing the zone on a piece of land without any consideration of what was going to go on it, we might have asked other questions. We clearly knew what was being proposed, who was proposing it, and to a great extent, on the strength of that information, did not ask questions about the need for a zone change. Now, we are looking at exactly the same thing. A proposal to change a zone. We cannot really divest ourselves of the information whether it is being stated explicitly by the developer or staffs view of what will happen. I cannot separate those two. On the one hand we were very positive in approving a zone change. Now, we are looking at another zone change, and are told there is nothing in the application that tells us what they are going to do with it. However, there has been no indication that there is a change in their intent. A gravel pit was a stated purpose in the previous application, which was withdrawn. Wilson pointed out that her findings in the staff report that there would be uses allowed in the R-1 zoning district that would not be compatible with the urban development in the area, and gravel pits are one of them. This is not to presume with all certainty that this will be a gravel put, but to demonstrate that the R-1 zoning is not really consistent with what we would anticipate in that area. An R-1 district would more normally be located in more rural areas, away from concentrated urban development. There are incompatible uses in the R-1, that you would anticipate in the rural areas of the county. Carlson noted that there is not an R-1 zone within two miles of this subject property. I would consider that more of a spot zone than anything else. Bahr agreed that one has to be concerned and have empathy for the neighbors who will be impacted quite substantially by, what in the past, has been proposed for this property. It is a very unique piece of property. The owners are more or less stuck with the property. The western portion is so steep that without major modification to that hill, l` nothing could pass inspection without taking about 20 feet off the top, to get it down to a reasonable grade where any building could be done. The 10 1 1/2 acre lot is next to a high residential area. At the same time, McElroy & Wilken have a high investment in a gravel pit adjacent to this and would like to have access to more gravel or they will be forced into a relocation. The particular property has more frontage on I-1 district than it does on R-4 district. Sooner or later that gravel pit is going to have to be reclaimed. At that time, something is going in there, and that is going to effect the property owners, whether it happens in the near future or 20 years from now. I think their earlier proposal was reasonable. It wasn't perfect for the homeowners, nor was it perfect for McElroy & Wilken, but somewhere in between what can be done, could be done or should be done. I think it is the best solution for the current owners of that property that is mostly surrounded by a gravel pit. They have the most to gain and the most to lose. I would prefer to get the mining done and get it reclaimed. I would like to see the Board put a time limit on McElroy & Wilken for reclamation of that pit, if it is going to happen. Wilson assuming that this gets approved, really the only way that this Board could do that would be to make a recommendation to the Board of Adjustment. Lopp noted that recognizing that they will have to close out that site at some time in the future, and must meet the reclamation requirements, a \� coordinated plan which included the details of how, when each phase would occur, and what the impact would be to the overall site and the neighborhood, then we would have something of balance in both directions. It is a hazard right now. I can see why they are fencing. At that point, maybe they can meet a reduction of noise, dust, retention of the slope, with timelines so the neighborhood knows what is going to happen and when. Johnson was asked about any reclamation plan that exists for this pit? He said there are two plans, and explained the two plans on file. They don't have much teeth because they predate when the reclamation laws got more stringent. A conditional use permit would put conditions on it, if that is what they elect to do. They are looking at other things and part of the activity is the beginning of the reclamation. That little hill is not going to provide them with millions of dollars and years worth of gravel. It is a plan to incorporate into their entire design. Motion Lopp made the motion to adopt the findings of fact in staff report #FZC- 97-7 and based on these findings, recommend to the Board of County Commissioners the requested zone change from R-4 to R-1 be denied. Conner seconded. On a roll call vote Carlson, Lopp, Brenneman, and 1 Conner voted aye. Bahr and Sanders voted no. The motion carried on a 4-2 vote. 11 OLD BUSINESS Wilson informed the Board that the update of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance is underway between FRDO and City staff to address some housekeeping amendments. She asked for any comments from the Board. NEW BUSINESS The November Planning Board meeting will be on Thursday, November 131h, due to the Veteran's Day holiday on Tuesday. Bob Lopp and Pam Kennedy will not be able to. attend the Thursday meeting. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Pamela J.B. Kennedy, Vice -Chair 6 Yeth Ontko, Recording Secretary APPROVED: 11 l3 ��-,- 12