Loading...
04-20-99 Special MeetingKALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING APRIL 20, 1999 CALL TO ORDER AND The special meeting was called to order by Jean Johnson at ROLL CALL approximately 7:10 p.m. He noted the sole purpose of the meeting was to consider the Montana Department of Natural Resources Members Neighborhood Plan for Section 36. Members present were: Rob Heinecke, Greg Stevens, Jean Johnson, Don Hines, Keith Brian Sipe, Joe Brenneman and Bill Rice. Don Garberg and Don Mann were absent. The Flathead Regional Development Office was represented by Narda Wilson. There were approximately three people in the audience. DNRC A request by DNRC for approval of a proposed neighborhood plan NEIGHBORHOOD known as DNRC' Neighborhood Plan, Section 36, property located PLAN, SCHOOL on the west side of Highway 93 between Four Mile Drive and West SECTION 36 Reserve Drive, north of Kalispell. STAFF REPORT The chairman noted that this matter was continued from the regular April 13, 1999 meeting where a staff report was presented by Tom Jentz, FRDO Director, with a recommendation that the board adopt the KNP-99-1 staff report with the changes attached to O his memorandum to the board dated April 6, 1999. Additionally, the board should adopt Resolution KMPA-99-1 and forward the plan to the Kalispell City Council and the Board of County Commissioners for consideration. Once adopted the plan would serve as an addendum to the Kalispell City -County Master Plan. The matter was continued until the special meeting because of the late meeting on April 13, 1999. The chairman asked for comments from the applicants. COMMENTS FROM David Greer, planning consultant for the DNRC, explained that the THE APPLICANTS reason for this proposal is to plan for long term growth on this property, provide some predictability for the neighborhood and avoid the intrusion of inappropriate uses. Jon Dahlberg, Northwest Montana Region Area Manager for DNRC, noted pass land use decisions such as the transmission easement, the Kalispell Bypass and the location of the City ballfields were decisions that were not based on good planning and has unintended consequences for the future use of the remaining land. For instance, they would rather have located the City ballfields on the northwest corner of the property rather than where is was located, but since there was not guiding document for land uses, it ended up elsewhere. Ted Giesey, Trust Lands Program Manager with the DNRC, also noted that the lease negotiated with the City for the ballfield Kalispell City County Planning Board Minutes of meeting April 20, 1999 Page 1 of 3 property was based upon the AG-80 zoning and he does not believe was an equitable assessment. This fact let to the State not receiving the highest possible value on the lease and to meet their mandate to seek the highest value of the land for the purpose of providing funding to the schools. BOARD DISCUSSION Chairman Johnson noted that this was the first time that the DNRC has attempted to implement this type of plan for development on school trust lands There was discussion among the board about the plan and its relation to conventional zoning. Greer noted that this plan was the first step in the process and that the State intended to move forward with a customized proposal somewhat like a PUD that would address the location of streets, performance standards for landscaping and the types and timing of development. Furthermore, they would enter into a memorandum of understanding with the City and County which would be binding to future land boards and provide assurances to the community regarding the type of development which would occur on the site. Stevens stated that he believed he is faced with a dilemma in this situation because he the emphasis of the plan is weighted in favor of the neighborhood concerns rather than the State's fiduciary responsibility to the school trust. Sipe stated that he agreed with Stevens that the State was not proposing to get the highest possible value for the property and did not understand why the State would want to bind themselves the type of plan being proposed. John Dahlberg explained the tenuous balancing of the various interest groups when making these decisions in order to avoid being taken to court, as they have in the past. He further noted that the Montana Environmental Act (MEPA) provides for a public process when considering the disposition of state-owned land. There was additional board discussion regarding the type of lease holder that would make the necessary investment to extend water, sewer and provide other services to the site. Several board members expressed skepticism about a lessee who would be willing to make that kind of investment on leased land. Others noted that there are many situations such as the Gateway West Mall who heavily invest in leased land.. MOTION Heinecke moved and Rice seconded a motion to adopt Resolution KMPA-99-1 and staff report KNP-99-1 and forward the plan on to the county commissioners and city council for consideration. The motion passed on a vote of six in favor and one opposed. Kalispell City County Planning Board Minutes of meeting April 20, 1999 Page 2 of 3 ADJOURNMENT Having finished the business intended for the special meeting, the planning board adjourned at approximately 7:49 PM. It was noted text regular will start at 6:00 PM. ylll�e& Nar a Wilson, Recording Secr t Approved as submitted/corrected: / /99 Kalispell City County Planning Board Minutes of meeting April 20, 1999 Page 3 of 3