Loading...
04-13-99KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF MEETING APRIL 13, 1999 CALL TO ORDER AND The meeting was called to order by Jean Johnson at approximately ROLL CALL 7:00 p.m. Members present were: Donald Garberg, Rob Heinecke, Greg Stevens, Jean Johnson, Don Hines, Keith Brian Sipe, Joe Brenneman, Bill Rice, and Don Mann. The Flathead Regional Development Office was represented by Tom Jentz and Narda Wilson. There were approximately 41 people in the audience. SEATING OF MEMBER- The Board welcomed new member -at -large, Bill Rice. AT -LARGE APPROVAL OF On a motion by Stevens and seconded by Hines, the minutes of MINUTES the meeting of March 9, 1999 were approved unanimously on a vote by acclamation. SENIOR HOUSING A request by Kalispell Senior Housing Association for a conditional ASSOC. CONDITIONAL use permit to allow a 24 unit senior citizen apartment complex. USE PERMIT STAFF REPORT Narda Wilson of the Flathead Regional Development Office gave a thorough presentation of staff report KCU-99-3 in .which staff recommends that the Kalispell Planning Board recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the conditional use permit be approved subject to 8 conditions. Infrastructure in the area is anticipated to be more than adequate for the development. PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the petition. No one wished to speak for or against the petition and the public hearing was closed. BOARD DISCUSSION The Board discussed the petition and found that the request did meet the required criteria. MOTION Breneman moved and Stevens seconded to adopt staff report KCU- 99-3 as findings of fact and, based on these findings, recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the conditional use permit be approved subject to the 8 conditions as outlined in the report. On a roll call vote: All members voted Aye. The motion passed unanimously on a vote of 9-0 in favor. UNICORE A request by Unicore Development, Inc. for a conditional use DEVELOPMENT permit and preliminary plat approval to construct a 10 dwelling CONDITIONAL USE condominium project known as Chokecherry Ridge. PERMIT �.- Board president Johnson asked that the developers give their presentation first and then have that followed by Tom Jentz with the staff report. Kalispell City County Planning Board Minutes of meeting April 13, 1999 Page 1 of 13 Max Battle, attorney for Unicore Development gave a presentation ( Imo) on the Chokecherry Ridge development project stating that as he understands the rules for this board he will be allowed time for a rebuttal after the staff report and the public hearing. He reported that based on the professional opinion of the state certified engineer on the Chokecherry Ridge project the bank stability is not a concern. Battle stated that he had been unable to find in codes a setback like that required by staff conditions. The developers have presented a revised plan which includes a cutting down of the bank at the back of the buildings that will result in a 20 foot setback to the edge of the buildings but will allow them to be within 10 feet of the top of bank as it sits now. He noted that the staff report has considerations where they don't want anything disturbed within 10 feet of the bank, and if there is a cut down they would have to disturb within 10 feet of the bank, but stability is not an issue and they don't want to build anything that is going to erode or have a problem. They agree to having it either way, a cut down of the bank for a 20 foot setback, or having a 10 foot set back to the current bank. In speaking to the issue of storm water Battle pointed out that all of the water that falls on the lot soaks into the soil with the exception of the area where the old ice house is. He said that in redesign of the subdivision plat calls for using storm drains to take the water all of the way to the bottom of the bank and put the water out in rip rap. He stated that their engineer had investigated the reported crack in the bank and he believed that it followed a gopher burrow and wasn't related to the bank subsiding or a sloughing of the bank. He stated that there have been many structures closer to the bank than what this project proposes and that their independent engineer believes that the bank is able to tolerate the building load and that there will not be a problem of bank erosion and sloughing that would put the finished condominiums at risk. He also spoke on the issue of character of the neighborhood, which was of great concern to the neighbors at the previous public hearings, and noted that this development will enhance, not degrade, the character of the area. Battle stated that the units in this subdivision will probably sell for more than what most of the homes in the area are worth. He noted that the opposition had stated at previous hearing that these developers should come in and build two $400,000 homes on that lot. He stated this is a ludicrous statement, that one would not build that type of home in this neighborhood because it is not a neighborhood of such homes and it would not support the investment. He stated that certain members of the opposition is against this proposal simply due to the desire for the open space for their view, and those people will not be swayed or convinced by anything that he or the board might say. On the question of zoning designation Battle stated that the developers require an R- 3 cluster development zoning. He noted with an R-3 without a cluster development they could build a boarding house as a permitted use, which would be considerably less agreeable to the neighborhood than the condominiums that they are proposing. Kalispell City County Planning Board Minutes of meeting April 13, 1999 Page 2 of 13 He noted that based on the previous public hearings one would think that this is a much larger neighborhood than it is. That many of the opponents are not from the immediate area. He showed a drawing of the proposed development, noting that the parking plan is no tighter than the parking in the area or parking lots in the county. He presented pictures of the area and stated that this development is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and that this development is for clustered one family dwellings. In summary Battle stated that all the issues about traffic and bank stability are simply red herrings by people that don't want the project in their neighborhood. He stated that they disagree with some of the staff conditions which he has addressed, such as set backs and disturbance of the bank. He asked that the Board remember in the end that the staff report does recommend approval. Bob Guditis, engineer for the project, spoke in favor of the petition. In speaking to the bank stability and erosion potential on this property he stated in his experienced and professional opinion the property is stable and can support the project as presented. Pictures of the area and a copy of the new layout blueprint were presented to the board along with a letter from Mr. Guditis summarizing the calculations on the weight and the issues of bank stability. STAFF REPORT Tom Jentz of the Flathead Regional Development Office gave a O thorough presentation of staff report KPP-99- lA in which staff recommends that the Board recommend preliminary plat approval for this subdivision subject to the conditions. He also gave a presentation of staff report KCU-99- lA in which staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit subject to 14 conditions. Jentz noted that at this hearing the board will not be looking at annexation or zoning designation as there is a general acknowledgment that they made sense and so do not need to be gone over again. Jentz explained that in the R-3 an incidental boarding house with a maximum of 3 adults is a permitted use, however, this is not the traditional 8 - 40 unit boarding house. R- 3 is a single family zoning that does allow clustering. Jentz also noted that the subdivision aspect does meet statutory criteria and the ability to fulfill the infrastructure requirements are expected to be easily met. Jentz stated that the setback requirement of 20 feet came from many places including the fire department which wants a level and safe area behind the buildings in case of emergency. Jentz stated that staff does recommend approval with the staff conditions as presented. This will require that the project be redesigned to meet all of the condition requirements. He presented 7 letters opposed to the project giving the density on just 2/3 of an acre, increased traffic density, public safety, setbacks and bank disturbance, bank instability, fire hazard, and incompatibility with the area as reasons for opposition. Stevens asked if a 20 foot setback is needed when the project does Kalispell City County Planning Board Minutes of meeting April 13, 1999 Page 3 of 13 not abut anything and in lieu of the soil analysis is there still a need for the full 20 foot setback. Jentz stated that the setback requirement was for several reasons only one of which had been bank stability, therefore staff continues to include a 20 foot setback condition. Johnson asked if the deepest boring was 20 feet and the engineer answered that there were 5 borings and they were at 30 feet. PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the petition. PROPONENTS Earl McPeek, one of the project developers, spoke in favor of the project noting that this project is being designed to compliment and blend with the 30-40 year old homes in the area. He stated that this is a good design and a good project. Ron Lambert, 57 Summit, Somers, spoke in favor of the project noting that they have been working with the owners and FRDO and considered the community input and have come a long way with the project. John Vincent, property owner, spoke in favor of the project and noted that the project is good and he is ready to pass the stewardship of this property on. He noted that it is appropriate to the neighborhood and reasonable for them to make money on the Oproject. Brenda Vincent, co-owner of the property, spoke in favor of the project noting that they cannot take care of the property any more and they want to turn it over to someone that will care for the property. She stated that they do care about the neighborhood and that she believed that the board is there not only to protect the neighbors but also to protect the owners. OPPONENTS Dave Ebert, 476 4th Ave. E.N., stated that this project is too dense and asked why there could not be a smaller development. Jerry Anderson, 476 5th Ave. E.N., concerns over increased traffic which will run over onto Oregon and concern over this large a project be on this small a area. Wants this to conform to the current neighborhood. Georgia Staub, corner of 3 Ave. E. and Oregon, these dwellings would not fit character of the neighborhood. She noted that the engineers report is speculation to some degree. She is unhappy with the process by the developers and that if they had met the conditions set by FRDO this project could have passed through the process already. Sarah Locey, speaking for her parents, is in opposition to the project. She spoke against the project as proposed noting that the Kalispell City County Planning Board Minutes of meeting April 13, 1999 Page 4 of 13 buildable site is 2/3 of an acre and she disagreed with the engineers report. High density cluster development does not conform to the single family older neighborhood that currently exists. Sue Ellen Anderson, 484 8th Ave. E.N., spoke against the project stating that she is 3 blocks from the proposed project off of California Street which will be impacted with higher traffic density. She listed bank stability and neighborhood integrity as reasons for opposition. Ed White, adjoining property owner, spoke against the project noting that 10 units on that small a piece of property is over development. He stated extreme concern over bank stability and noted that this is a single family home neighborhood and there are no condos in the area. He also spoke on the ecological impact to the wetlands. Steve Cheman, lives across from the proposed project and is in opposition to the project due to property values, traffic congestion, notes once again that this is being proposed on 2/3 of an acre. He noted that the cracks in the bank are of concern and are not gopher trails. Clara Ellen Anderson, 476 5th Ave. E.N., long time resident of the valley, spoke against the project noting that this project is not compatible to the older single family residence neighborhood. Tammy Valentino, 461 4th Ave. E.N. spoke against the project and stated that she had the same concerns as the others, but placed emphasis on the increased traffic and safety issues. Marge White, 20 4th Ave. East, Fernwell Apartments, spoke in opposition agreeing with the previous opponents. Robley Carr, 550 4th Ave. E.N., agrees with previous opponents. Bob Domrose,376 6th Ave. E.N., spoke against the proposal and stated he wants a 2nd opinion on the engineering report. He would rather see the city purchase the property and build a play ground area as he does not want this site to be developed. No place for the kids to play this should remain an open area. Arla Culver, 461 E. California, opposed the development agreeing with the previous opponents. Richard Cole, 867 N. Main Street, opposed to the project, noting that zoning does have a purpose and that this is incompatible to the single family neighborhood. C% Lance Staub, 459 3rd Ave. E.N., noted that the east north area is special and having people from the whole area shows the Kalispell City County Planning Board Minutes of meeting April 13, 1999 Page 5 of 13 neighborhood concern. Jean Johnson suggested that the board discussion take place before the applicants present their rebuttal, but the applicants chose to go first. Johnson suggested that the applicant have 2 minutes for their rebuttal and asked if that would be agreeable. REBUTTAL Battle stated that he would not agree to that, the board could make him stop at 2 minutes but the board would be making a legal mistake. He stated that it would be in violation, of the board rules and a denial of due process. Battle stated the staff started out saying that the 20 foot requirement was in the conditions as a safety issue and now is calling it a neighborhood compatibility problem and that staff addresses this in regard to setback from alleys. Setbacks is a property line issue and this property is more than 20 feet from adjacent properties. In regard to the safety issue he pointed out that the only person in the room with an engineering license was Mr. Guditis and that anyone else giving opinions on engineering issues is practicing without a license and are a public nuisance by statute. On the increased traffic issue he made two points, one that FRDO did not say there was a traffic issue and secondly if a park is placed in there then it will be a public place that people will drive to and will cause as much or more traffic than the proposed development. In respect to the neighborhood compatibility issue there is a mobile home on a O permanent foundation directly across the street from the development and that could not be considered an old turn of the century home so the statements about this not being in character did not fit. The rules provide for cluster development for sites like this one and that is what his clients wish to do.. A condo association will be formed so the question on who will deal with future potential problems. (Johnson requested that Battle summarize at this point.) Battle objected to Johnson not following the procedure or the rules of the Planning Board. He then asked if they were being denied the right to rap up the rebuttal and stated that if the Chairman was doing that without a board vote then he, with his clients, would deal with that at a later date. The members requested that Battle continue with the rebuttal and requested that he be brief. Battle continued with the issue of earthquakes as brought up by the opposition and noted that the homes in the area were not designed to meet any codes as they didn't exist at the time they were built and added that this project will meet the current safety codes for earthquake. He stated that Oregon Street, the main east -west roadway, has multi -family apartments. He stated that the opponents had changed their reasons for opposition, that they just don't want this project. He re -stated that as per the only professional engineer in the room the bank stability is not a problem, this project's foundation system design will work without a problem. Johnson asked for an opposition rebuttal. An audience member asked what qualifications the engineer had. In response Guditis Kalispell City County Planning Board Minutes of meeting April 13, 1999 Page 6 of 13 stated that he is a registered civil engineer in 3 states, he did graduate work in foundations, certified soil tester, and has worked on numerous projects over a 25 year career. The public hearing was closed. BOARD DISCUSSION Rice asked if a redesign will be required for the project to meet the conditions. Jentz answered that to meet the conditions literally would cause the project to have to be redesigned. This would become a procedural, staff review, and then finally the go to the council. Garberg stated that this project does not fit the area which he based on stated opposition and potential problems later. Stevens stated that site suitability and traffic safety have been met through the engineer and the staff. Heinecke noted that he doesn't believe that this will cause the visual impact that the neighborhood is concerned about. Doesn't want to second guess the engineer and notes that the homeowners association will cover the maintenance and noted that the fire issue is covered by site review and summed up with the opinion that this project is right and he is in favor. MOTIONS Stevens moved and Heinecke seconded to adopt staff report KPP- 99- lA as findings of fact and, based on these findings, recommend that the Kalispell City Council grant preliminary plat approval for this subdivision amending the conditions by; Deleting recommendations 2,3,4,5, and subject to 1, and 6-14. On a roll call vote: Sipe, Heinecke and Stevens voted Aye. Hines, Mann, Johnson, Breneman, Garberg and Rice voted No. The motion to recommend approval with amended conditions failed on a vote of 6-3 against. Garberg moved and Mann seconded to adopt the findings that there is incompatibility to the neighborhood and that there are potential environmental consequences, fire safety, high density on this site, strong neighborhood opposition and serious parking issues and, based on these findings, recommend denial. Heinecke asked that the board seriously consider the R-3 zoning being appropriate for this site and that this cluster development project is appropriate for this area. Garberg stated that the board had to consider this project only and the this project is not right for this site. On a roll call vote: Stevens, Johnson, Hines, Rice, Sipe, and Heinecke voted No. Brenemen, Mann and Garberg voted Yes. The motion to deny the application with new findings failed on a vote Kalispell City County Planning Board Minutes of meeting April 13, 1999 Page 7 of 13 of 6-3 against the denial. (� Stevens moved and Sipe seconded to adopt staff report KCU-99-1 as findings of fact and, based on these findings, recommend to the City Council to grant the preliminary plat for this subdivision subject to the 14 conditions as stated in the report. Heinecke moved and Stevens seconded to amend the previous motion to strike condition 2. On a roll call vote: Sipe, Stevens, and Heinecke voted Yes. Garberg, Rice, Breneman, Mann, Hines, and Johnson voted No. The motion to amend failed on a vote of 6- 3 against amending the motion. On the motion to approve with the conditions as stated in the staff report; Heinecke, Hines, Sipe, Johnson, Rice, Stevens, and Breneman voted Yes; Garberg and Mann voted No. The motion to recommend approval of the conditional use permit subject to the conditions as stated in the staff report passed on a vote of 7-2 in favor. Stevens moved and Sipe seconded to adopt staff report KPP-99- lA as findings of fact and, based on these findings, recommend to the City Council that the preliminary plat for the Chokecherry Ridge Subdivision be approved subject to the 13 conditions as stated in the .report. On a roll call vote: Stevens, Breneman, Hines, Rice, Heinecke, Sipe, and Johnson voted Yes; Mann and Garberg voted �) No. The motion to recommend approval of the preliminary plat -" passed on a vote of 7-2 in favor. Johnson called for a 5 minute break. MDOT CONDITIONAL A request by the Montana Department of Transportation for a USE PERMIT conditional use permit to construct a 100 foot tall communications tower in conjunction with their maintenance building. Mounted on the ground not the building. Filed with FAA not FCC. STAFF REPORT Narda Wilson presented staff report KCU-99-4 in which staff recommends that the planning board adopt the staff report KCU- 99-4 as findings of fact and recommend to the city council that the conditional use permit be approved subject to 4 conditions. PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the petition. PROPONENTS Jerry Dupler, spoke in favor of the communication tower. He asked that the board reword condition 4 to include that construction should commence or a continuous good faith -within 18 months. No one spoke against the project and the public hearing was closed. BOARD DISCUSSION The Board discussed the petition, considered public testimony and Kalispell City County Planning Board Minutes of meeting April 13, 1999 Page 8 of 13 found that the petition did meet the required criteria. MOTION Stevens moved and Hines seconded to adopt staff report KCU-99-4 as findings of fact and, based on these findings, recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the conditional use permit be approved subject to conditions 1-3 as outlined in the report and amend condition #4: The conditional use permit is valid for a period of 18 months from the date of authorization in which time construction or a continuous good faith effort will commence. On a roll call vote: - All members voted Aye. The motion passed unanimously on a vote of 9-0 in favor. SYLLING ZONE A request by Al Sylling d.b.a. Arico for a zone change from R-1 to CHANGE AND RIVER R-3 and preliminary plat approval of River Place Subdivision, a PLACE SUBDIVISION 144 lot residential subdivision on 54,4 acres in Evergreen. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL STAFF REPORT Narda Wilson presented staff reports FPP-99-3 and FZC-99-6 in which staff recommends that the Board recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the zone change and preliminary plat be approved subject to twenty (20) conditions. There is minor reconfiguration needed on the cul-de-sac planning. Staff recommends that the cash in lieu of parkland be based on the assessor's. office or an independent appraiser. JPUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the petition. PROPONENTS Al Sylling, 71 Springwood Lane, spoke in favor of the application stating that affordable housing is the focus of this project. He noted that by changing the zone to R-3 the subdivision would be able to have lot sizes that would allow them to keep a target lot price of twenty-three to twenty-five thousand dollars. This is considerably less than most of the current selling prices and would allow them to provide affordable housing in the Flathead Valley. Jeff Larsen, Larsen Engineering, stated that it benefits the community by doing a large project like this. The developers had a neighborhood meeting and designed a project that met their wishes. He noted that in order to keep the target lot price at this level they had to have a design and lot size such as is being presented. He also noted that this development will include the amenities and infrastructure needed, noting that other subdivisions don't require a lot of off site improvements such as this development has planned. He stated that they have no problems with the conditions. Fred Ricketts, a Realtor with Re -Max, has been working on this 1 project for 2 years and is in favor of this development keeping the J lots affordable and planning a subdivision design that works in the area. He also stated that this development is favorable to the Kalispell City County Planning Board Minutes of meeting April 13, 1999 Page 9 of 13 property owner. Jerry Bag, 220 Woodland Ave., stated that he has worked with Al Sylling in the past and that the homes he builds. are of excellent quality and this project will give the community an excellent subdivision that is affordable and a compliment to the community. OPPONENTS Christy Erickson, 44 West Evergreen Dr., concerned about a previous project that may come back if there is a zoning change. She has concern over safety and traffic density specifically on River Road. She stated concerns over the precedence for future development, tax payer repercussions, and environment issues. Armeda Oursland, spoke against the proposal stating traffic and safety, floodplain issues, and game reserve for Canadian geese, and that this density is of too high an impact as reasons for opposition. Ray Newkirch, River Road, spoke against the project stating that the this project has too high a density and that the schools are already maxed out. He stated fire issues, police protection and traffic safety, low priority for road improvements, and tax increases as reasons for opposition. Jim Chase, 44 River Road, agrees with the current R-1 single family one acre minimum zoning. He stated concern over water retention and run off. Poor access to River Road and Cottonwood. Rhonda McDowell -Rowan, 34 West Evergreen, spoke in opposition of the project agreeing with the previous opposition. Bob Heneman, 156 E. Cottonwood Dr., spoke against the project noting that walking in the area is very dangerous because of poor quality narrow roads, and extreme concern over traffic increases. He is objecting to development of this scale. Jolene Thomas, 101 West Evergreen Dr., spoke in opposition stating concern over traffic, much too dense a project and agrees with the previous speakers. Barb Goulet, 41 West Evergreen, stated extreme concerns over traffic and child safety, school impact, fire safety, and accessibility as points of opposition. Dorothy Huff, 29 Meadowlark Drive, agrees with all of the previous speakers. Steve Berg, 97 West Cottonwood, agrees with previous opponents. Duane Goulet, against the project and agrees with the previous speakers noting that the main concern is the density of the project. Kalispell City County Planning Board Minutes of meeting April 13, 1999 Page 10 of 13 Larry Oursland, 54 River Road, spoke against this proposal and is in favor of a zone change to suburban agricultural. He stated concern over density and devastation to the area. Dan Oursland, agreed with his neighbors that density is the major issue. No one else wished to speak and the public hearing was closed. BOARD DISCUSSION Heinecke asked about drainage and Wilson stated that the state requires a drainage plan on a development of this size and that it would be addressed at site review and any groundwater problems would be considered by the engineers. Sipe noted that he is in favor of this subdivision with affordable housing. Stevens noted that affordable housing is a serious issue in the area and this seems to be a good development. Hines asked about time frame is there for selling this project out. It was noted that the development is looking at a 3 phase structure and would cover a two to three year time period for the first year. Johnson noted that the Board does not cover infrastructure before subdivision but cover it the other way around. It was noted that this property is in the 500 year floodplain. Wilson explained that part of the conditions is for a road users association so the county does not take over the roads. The Board discussed the petitions, considered public testimony and found that this subdivision of affordable lots and housing is needed in this community and that the design met all of the required criteria. MOTION Stevens moved and Hines seconded to approve staff reports FZC- 99-6 and FPP-99-3 as findings of fact and, based on these findings, recommend to the Board of county Commissioners that the zone change and preliminary plat be approved subject to the twenty (20) conditions amending them to include a condition #21 The developers are encouraged to pursue the acquisition of an easement for a pedestrian and bike path in cooperation with the property owners to the north. On a roll call vote: All members voted Aye. The motion passed unanimously on a vote of 9-0 in favor. �C �l FARRIS ZONE CHANGE A request by Andrew Farris for a zone change in Evergreen from SAG-10 and R-1 to R-3 on approximately 18 acres in Evergreen. Kalispell City County Planning Board Minutes of meeting April 13, 1999 Page 11 of 13 STAFF REPORT Narda Wilson presented staff report FZC-98-12A in which staff �1 recommends that the Board and Zoning Commission adopt the l report as findings of fact and recommend denial of the requested zone change. PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the petition. PROPONENTS John Parson, 729 9t1i Ave. West., stated that water service had been agreed upon and that sewer will probably not be given but the master plan only requires one of those services. Minimum lot size does not have to be met if the non degradation rule is met it allows for increased density. The petitioners still request R-3 zoning and if sewer doesn't go through then they will have to development with larger lots. OPPONENTS Dan Skiles, 161 East Reserve, spoke against the petition noting that this property is in the floodplain and that there are traffic safety and road quality issues. Bill Leininger, 619 Granite View Drive, spoke against the petition stating that the narrow road, 100 year floodplain, and concerns that there is not a subdivision plan together with the septic system problems that this petition should not be approved. BOARD DISCUSSION Stevens would change it to R-2 but without sewer this should not be approved for an R-3. The board discussed the petition and considered public testimony and found that due to the lack of a subdivision plan and the lack of agreed sewer services this plan did not meet the required criteria. MOTION Breneman moved and Heinecke seconded to adopt staff report FZC-98-12A as findings of fact and, based on these findings, recommend that the Board of County Commissioners deny the requested zone change. On a roll call vote: Breneman, Heinecke, Garberg and Rice voted Aye. Stevens, Mann, Sipe, Johnson and Hines voted No: On the motion to adopt the findings in the staff report and deny the request for a zone change failed on a vote of 5- 4 against denial. Stevens moved to amend the findings of staff report FZC-99-12A on page 3 (#4. Will the requested change promote the health and general welfare?), delete the last 2 sentences of the paragraph and change the Summary and Discussion paragraph - Although at some point it may be appropriate to consider a higher- densAy R-3 zoning designation, it does not appear reasonable at this time because of the lack of water and sewer services to the majority of the property. An R-2 zoning designation is appropriate.. and delete the rest of the paragraph, and adopt the amended findings as fact and, based on these findings, recommend to the Kalispell Kalispell City County Planning Board Minutes of meeting April 13, 1999 Page 12 of 13 City Council to approve R-2 zoning, Sipe seconded. On discussion Brenneman stated that the board should not / arbitrarily change an application but must make decisions based on the applications as presented. On the motion the roll call vote was: Sipe, Hines, Mann, Heinecke, Johnson, Garberg and Stevens voted Yes. Breneman and Rice voted No. The motion to amend the findings and recommend approval of the request for a zone change to R-2 passed on a vote of 7-2 in favor. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business presented. OLD BUSINESS CONTINUATION OF Continuation of the DNRC Plan amendment and Neighborhood DNRC PLAN Plan addendum: Jentz explained that the staff and the DNRC are recommending that the newly developed amendments be adopted and then the Neighborhood plan be adopted or denied by a resolution. MOTION After some discussion by the board, Sipe moved and Garberg seconded that due to the late hour the Board continue discussion and recommendation of this item to a special meeting to be held at the work session dated April 2011". By acclamation vote the motion Opassed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT The next meeting, May 11, 1999, will begin at 6 p.m. The meeting was adjourned by motion at approximately 1:07 a.m. i J#WOn, President Tricia L ske, ecording Secretary Approved as submitted/corrected: /99 Kalispell City County Planning Board Minutes of meeting April 13, 1999 Page 13 of 13