Loading...
03-12-96KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING MARCH 12, 1996 CALL TO ORDER The regularly scheduled meeting of the Kalispell City -County AND ROLL CALL Planning Board and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Vice -Chair Pam Kennedy. Board members present were Walter Bahr, Milt Carlson, Robert Sanders, Joe Brenneman, Jean Johnson, and Pam Kennedy. Therese Hash arrived at 7:08 p.m. Absent members were Fred Hodgeboom and Mike Conner (both excused). Narda Wilson, Planner II represented the Flathead Regional Development Office. There were approximately 18 people were in attendance. APPROVAL OF The minutes of the meeting of February 13, 1996 were approved MINUTES as submitted on a motion by Bahr, second by Carlson. All members present voted aye. COLLIER ZONE The first public hearing was introduced on a request by Gary CHANGE / FROM Collier for a zone change from R-3, a Residential district, to B-3, R-3 TO B-3 a Community Business district. The property being proposed for rezoning is located on the north side of Washington Street between First Avenue WN and Second Avenue WN in Kalispell and contains approximately 14,000 square feet or 0.32 of an acre. This property can be described as Lots 6 and 7, Block 240- of Kalispell Addition 6 located in Section 7, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana. Staff Report Wilson gave a detailed presentation of report #KZC-96-1. The request was reviewed in accordance with the statutory criteria for a zone change. Based on staff's evaluation, it was recommended the requested zone change from R-3 to B-3 be granted. Two letters in opposition were received after the mailing of the packet, from nearby property owners. An additional objection was received per the telephone from a woman who lives on Second Avenue WN, expressing concern about the increase in traffic, and felt the blind intersection warranted a STOP sign. One letter in favor of the requested zone change was received from the owner of Lot 6, which is included in the zone change request. Public Hearing President Hash opened the public hearing to those in favor of the requested zone change. In Favor Gary Collier, the applicant, spoke in favor of the zone change. The people who live next door were concerned about parking. I 1 agree there is a parking problem west of PTI. We will address the off street parking by taking the garage out, and that should provide 6-7 parking spaces, which should be more than enough for the art studio. No one else spoke in favor of the zone change. The public hearing was opened to those opposed. Opposition Beverly Mayberry, 380 1st Ave WN, expressed concerns about the increased traffic on 1st Avenue WN. The alley that separates these two lots is in horrible condition, and frequently there is a cattle truck parked on the vacant lot next to this lot, as well as a lot of equipment, tractor trailers, etc. that block the alley, which is my access to my garage in the middle of the block. Recently, we spend a lot of money renovating our property, and we have concerns about what this will do to our property values. We also have concerns about the effect on the area, since the commercial zone change is for just two lots, on a residential block. There being no further comment either in favor or in opposition, the public hearing was closed and it was opened to Board discussion. Discussion Carlson asked about sidewalks. Wilson responded that there are no sidewalks in the area, and that is a problem. The applicant will be required to pave the parking lot and the access portion of the alley when he applies for a building permit for a commercial development. With regard to the cattle truck, that should not be in a residential area. Mr. Collier explained that the trucks belong to Jay Nordham, who is a trucker and he is taking care of the place while Shawn Little is gone. He indicated that he would convey the Board's concerns regarding the equipment. Collier interjected that the City asked Mr. Little to rezone his property, as well, so it wouldn't be just 1/2 a block. Mr. Little has no objection to being zoned B-3. He lives next to the vacant lot. (Lot 5) Kennedy felt it would be appropriate for the Planning Board to recommend that City Council look at sidewalks in the area. The area is void of sidewalks and the concerns of property owners in the area should be addressed. The Council also needs to look at high traffic areas and the lack of uncontrolled intersections, ie. lack of STOP signs, which can be discussed under new business. Wilson clarified that it was at the suggestion of the City Zoning Administrator that this would be a more appropriate proposal by 2 including Lot 6 in the requested zone change for Lot 7. The property owner was amenable to that. Motion Bahr moved to adopt FRDO staff report #KZC-96-1 as findings of fact and forward a favorable recommendation to City Council for the zone change request from R-3 Residential to B-3 Community Business. Kennedy seconded. On a roll call vote Kennedy, Johnson, Bahr, Sanders, Carlson, Brenneman, and Hash voted aye. The motion carried on a 7-0 vote in favor of the zone change. HALL The next item was a request by Dale Hall for a conditional use CONDITIONAL permit to allow the construction of three additional dwellings onto USE PERMIT / an existing four unit apartment building resulting in a total of a APARTMENT seven unit apartment building. This project would be in the RA-1, EXPANSION Low Density Residential Apartment, zoning district as provided for under Section 27.09.030(11) of the City of Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. The proposed apartment building expansion would be on property located at 715 Liberty Street in Kalispell, Montana located at the end of Liberty Street on the north side of the road. This property is in the City of Kalispell and contains approximately 21,120 square feet. It can be further described as Lot 5 of Liberty Village in Section 12, Township 28 North, Range 22 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana. Staff Report Wilson gave a detailed presentation of report #KCU-96-1. Based on the evaluation of the request, staff recommended the conditional use permit be granted subject to eight (8) conditions set forth in the report. Condition #6 was modified to state that the "Landscaping ... perimeter of the property, in accordance with the Kalispell Zoningr Ordinance". Carlson asked staff how this development related to the Planned Unit Development approved northeast of this proposal, and how it would effect the integrity of the neighborhood? Wilson said she would research the status of the PUD. Preliminary plat may have expired on that. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor. In Favor Dale Hall, the applicant, spoke in favor and was available for questions. He has no problem with the conditions of approval and is working with the City and local engineers on the drainage problem at the end of Liberty Street. No one else spoke either in favor or in opposition to the proposal. The public hearing was closed and it was opened to Board discussion. 3 Discussion Landscaping, snow removal and handicapped parking were discussed. Mr. Hall had no problem with providing handicapped parking. The drainage problem is being addressed Motion Kennedy moved to adopt staff report #KCU-96-1 as findings of fact, and recommend to City Council that the conditional use permit be granted to Dale Hall subject to the eight (8) conditions as modified by discussion. Johnson seconded. On a roll call vote Brenneman, Bahr, Johnson, Kennedy, Carlson, Sanders and Hash voted aye. The motion carried unanimously in favor. TRIANGLE Hash introduced the next request by Triangle Development for DEVELOPMENT / annexation and a City zoning designation of RA-3, a Residential/ ANNEXATION & Apartment Office district. The property being proposed for ZONE CHANGE / annexation is located on the west side of Whitefish Stage Road, RA-I(COUNTY) approximately 800 feet south of West Evergreen Drive and TO RA-3 (CITY) containing approximately 2.7 acres. This property can be described as Assessor's Tract 1B located in Section 6, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana. Staff Report Wilson reported that the request for annexation and zone change upon annexation is tied in with the request for preliminary plat approval for an eight -unit office/condominium project. Staff proceeded to give a detailed presentation of report #KA-96-1. The request was evaluated in accordance with the statutory criteria for a change in zoning. Based on staff's review of the request for a RA-3 zone, an alternative of R-5 was recommended which would allow professional offices and would be more _ consistent with the intent of the district. Additionally,it would eliminate the need for a variance to the rear yard setback requirement for the preliminary plat. Staff recommended a zone change from County RA-1 to City R-5 for the property, upon annexation. Wilson asked if she should give the presentation on the plat, because the two proposals are so intricately tied together, it is difficult to look at the zoning, make a decision, and then look at the plat. Hash did not think that was a good idea. Being on the Board for some time, we have unfortunately have had the ill result of doing just that, and it turns out that after the zone is changed, the project doesn't happen. Kennedy concurred that we need to look at the zoning completely separate from the preliminary plat. She asked staff if she had discussed the R-5 recommendation with the developer. 4 t� Wilson replied that she had, and they were in agreement with the staff recommendation. Hash expressed concerns with the R-5 recommendation, as the public notice went in under an RA-3 zone request. Wilson explained that it is my understanding that based on the character of the area, and the Master Plan designation, that the appropriate zoning would be determined by the governing body. I am not convinced that the change in recommendation from RA-3 to R-5 presents a problem. Hash noted that it might not present a substantive problem, but it could be a problem with the lack of due process for the public. Public Hearing Hash opened the public hearing to those in favor of the request for annexation and zoning designation of RA-3. In Favor David Greer, a representative for the applicant, commented on the procedure of the application. We applied for an RA-3 and you may choose to say that is not appropriate, and that R-5 is more appropriate in your recommendation to City Council. I didn't see a problem. This came up about a week ago, and I have discussed this with FRDO staff. Greer went on to say that, I am speaking on behalf of the property owners. I did submit concurrent applications, so that you can see what you are going to get with the zone change. Back in December, the RA-3 proposal went to Site Plan Review, and they said it was an appropriate zoning classification for the property. We would be happy with either RA-3 or R-5. The R-5, based on the intent, is probably better for the property. The property is designated on the Master Plan as high density residential, and is currently zoned County RA-1. One of the criteria is compliance with the Master Plan, and there are four zoning classifications that fit the high density residential: R-5, RA-1, RA-2, and RA-3. With regards to the R-5, the Justice Center is zoned R-5. Item #8 on page 6, addresses the suitability of the property for this particular zone. On Whitefish Stage Road, there are industrial uses, a mobile home park, and 5-6 acres of B-1 on the corner of Evergreen, which is commercial type uses. This particular piece of property is an odd shaped piece. We looked at it from all different aspects. We recognized unique chances for this property. It has a real close association with Whitefish Stage Road, it is not a deep piece. It is triangle -shaped and that complicates access, but it is not physically attached to any other development. It has golf courses east, west and south, it has utilities nearby, and the existing zoning anticipates high density 5 development. He read through the list of uses allowed now under the County RA-1 zoning, and the City RA-1 comparable zone. The shape of the lot makes it difficult for multi -family development, because of the difficulty of providing access, etc. With condos or apartments, you would have to go high to make it work. We knew the neighbors wouldn't like 35 foot tall buildings, so we thought that a professional office complex gave more flexibility. The landowners have a sincere commitment to make a showcase project, to make it compatible to the neighborhood. The professional office design allows us to reduce the overall building density, instead of maxing out the property with a bunch of condos. It can be built at one story, instead of multiple levels. You reduce the amount of land coverage and increase the landscaping capabilities. The intent is to have offices such as dentists, CPA's, etc., with a residential character. Also, with a professional office development, there would not be children added to impact the schools, or traffic impacts to the roads, and it would be more compatible with golf courses. We think that RA-3 or R-5 would be appropriate to the property, Skip Stout, said he lives in Hillcrest Estates, directly across the street from the proposed development. Several years ago, I saw the plans that Duane Bitney proposed for there, and I don't want a multi -story residential complex that I have to look at through ! my back door. An office complex would be a good neighbor. At 5 o'clock, they go home, and on the weekends, they aren't going to be there. Something is going to go in there, and I would rather see this proposal. I am in favor of this, and I think R-5 would probably be the best zone designation. Marla Davis, Riverview Greens, said that she is in favor of a single story professional structure which would be much more aesthetic on that property. There being no further proponents, the public hearing was opened to anyone opposed to the proposal. Opposition Warren Illi, representing the 130 members of the Hillcrest Estates Homeowners' Association, and due to the short notice we had of this hearing, we have not held any association meetings. I have heard from several people living in the area, and have met with the Board of the association. We have no problem with the annexation, but what is an issue is allowing a commercial use to come into our residential neighborhood. Our subdivision is comprised of 130 single family residences to the east of this proposal. To the north is Riverview Greens, another subdivision with single family occupied homes, and to the south is Fairway Boulevard Townhouses. The west is the open space/golf course. This is viewed as a single family neighborhood, and we want to N. keep it that way and preclude any kind of commercial use. There is no commercial development on Whitefish Stage now, north of the city limits. We see any kind of commercial use as the beginning of commercial creep along Whitefish Stage Road. When I read the intent of the requested zoning, whether it is an RA-3 or R-5, this property is not fit for that intent. This is a residential area, and this request for a change to commercial zoning, almost got by us. The homeowners would like to see this remain residential, with a two-story height limit. Frank Miller, stated that he is not opposed to development on this property, but has grave concerns about the increased traffic on Whitefish Stage Road. Most of the traffic will probably be coming north from Kalispell and would require left hand turns, which would be very dangerous, with the current road conditions. Bill Jensen, 120 Riverview Greens, said he would like to see a height restriction on that site, whether it is an office building or a professional complex. I don't have a problem with that as long as it is one or two stories in height. I am also concerned about the traffic flow on Whitefish Stage Road. With a high density residential development, there would be an even greater traffic problem, which would be exacerbated with the number of children that would be there. There being no other opponents to the project, the public hearing was closed and opened to Board discussion. Discussion Wilson asked to comment and read from the Zoning Ordinance, regarding the role of the Planning Board on the annexation process and consideration of zoning. When someone requests annexation, it is the Board's responsibility to determine what the most appropriate zoning is. If the Board denies the RA-3, you are not necessarily denying the annexation. Hash expanded on that by noting that what we have is a landowner with an idea for development, and in order to achieve their goals, they need annexation and zone change to meet that ultimate development goal. In other instances, where the use will remain the same, the request is simply a change from a county to a city zone. Wilson replied that perhaps a City RA-1 zone would be the most appropriate. The Planning Board would make the recommendation to City Council, regardless of what staff recommends or what the applicant is requesting. Hash agreed, but had concerns that the notice to the public was for a certain zone classification. 7 Bahr concurred that this is a tough piece of land, and since it has become surrounded by residential development, if there is an allowance for this development, it is a change, that in its worse case, is spot zoning. Hash agreed that the intent is probably the ideal use for the site, but it seems like spot zoning. A specific change from the surrounding area for the benefit of that landowner, only, I cannot support either zoning request. Since commercial or professional uses do not exist in the area, it does not serve as a "buffer". With the RA-3, looking at the office/condominium project, that would then require a variance, that is not acceptable, as typically variances are not allowed when the hardship arises through the acts of the applicant. There may be B-1 less than a mile away, but right now it is empty. And someday Whitefish Stage may be a 4-lane, but right now it is not. Kennedy said that she, too, was having difficulty with both of these possibilities for zoning. Clearly, you indicate in the summary that RA-3 needs to be "located within or adjacent to a business shopping corridor or shopping island", and this is not. The R-5 district does not meet the exact intent, which is to "buffer between commercial and residential", and clearly, it does not. There is no commercial. Do you believe that it is substantially in compliance? Wilson answered that with B-1 zoning to the north, there is some commercial zoning, if not development in the area. At some point, that will be developed. With the Master Plan designating that as "high density residential", within those districts there are certain commercial uses that are allowed. When you look at the intent listed in the high density residential uses, it is hard to make them fit on this little triangle with what is there. So, maybe the Master Plan is inappropriate. It is a difficult call. I used my best judgement for putting together a recommendation for the Board. I admit that part of that is based on the proposal of the condominium project that is next. We are looking at a project that can be conditioned. When we look at the specific zoning without looking at the project, probably RA-1 is closest to what it is now. Kennedy noted that is exactly the difficulty. We have to zone the property appropriately for any use that could come into that zone. To look at the preliminary plat that might not ever come to fruition is not being fair to the rest of the landowners, or the City. We need to put zoning that is appropriate for any development that would happen in that zone, not for a specific preliminary plat. We have been bitten in the past with these not happening in the way they are presented. Then something not appropriate comes into the area. These are two separate issues. 8 They have to be addressed separately. So, not looking at the plat, I don't think either RA-3 or R-5 is appropriate. Brenneman asked Mr. Greer to clarify that what the landowners wish to do is develop this in an aesthetically pleasing way that maximizes their potential income, and the way to do this is to change to the zone that allows office buildings. Greer replied he did not say that. The applicants probably bought this land based on the zoning designation of high density residential, and that translates into something more than single family. You can develop the property with apartments or condos, but to get your money back - not maximize it - you are probably going to have to fill that triangle with lots of units and go high with them. Whereas, if you had some professional office opportunities, you wouldn't have to do that, because you are going to get a higher value return. There is a net balance. You either go with more residential, or less commercial. The value of the land would reflect the type of use. Carlson asked for the allowed and conditional uses allowed in the City RA-1 or R-3 which is adjacent to this. These uses were read from the Zoning Ordinance. Wilson noted that the City R-5 through RA-3 zones would meet the intent of a \ high density residential designation, as set forth in the Master Plan. Hash said she had a problem with tinkering with this, as it seems we are trying to fashion a remedy for the landowners. I suppose it is the task of the City Council to affix an appropriate zoning designation. If the Master Plan designation is high density residential, then we would technically look at the city zoning that would meet that. To truly do our job, we should be looking at those uses and restrictions, in light of this piece of land, without consideration of the proposed use. Kennedy read from the Ordinance that R-5 should serve as a buffer, so that does give some leeway and is not mandatory. It says the district is intended to accommodate professional offices, which is what the people are saying is an appropriate use for the area. There is a County R-5 south of this. It was indicated by Mr. Illi, that there is no commercial on Whitefish Stage to Reserve, but there is a gas station with a convenience store on the corner at Reserve, the Swank office building, and State Farm Insurance claims office, which is located north of this site. I agree, that with the nature of the homes in the area, professional offices would be better suited to the neighborhood, however, I, also, am concerned about spot zoning. M -- Wilson explained that because the Master Plan designates this as high density residential, it would not be spot zoning, as it would be in compliance. Carlson had a problem with a residential use going in that area, because of the traffic on Whitefish Stage, and would prefer to see professional offices. Johnson observed that commercial crawl is restricted from spreading by existing development. I don't feel this is spot zoning. By virtue of location, it is. By virtue of development, I think it is compatible with the surrounding area. I think the best use for the property is within the recommended zone. I do have a problem with the R-5, because I don't think that is before the table. Kennedy confirmed that no other public hearing would be held on a zone change, therefore, we need to send our intent to City Council. It is the duty of the Board to recommend the most appropriate zone for the property. The neighboring landowners have indicated that R-5 would be preferable. Sanders suggested that this proposal be tabled for a month and let the applicant come back with a proposal for R-5, so it can be legally noticed. Hash commented that she is hearing the adjacent landowners asking for a low level, harmonious development, which has been proposed, not necessarily R-5. Kennedy replied that an RA-3 would not give that to them. She read through the list of allowed uses in the R-5, which appear to be compatible uses with the neighborhood. The intent of an R-5, district "should serve as a buffer between residential and other commercial districts, -and should be associated with an arterial or minor arterial street", which this does. I was having trouble with this, but reading the text of the zoning ordinance, I think it gives us some flexibility and is meeting the intent of the Master Plan. I don't have any problem addressing this tonight, rather than sending the applicant back to bring forward an R-5 submittal. Bahr felt that this proposed development opens the door and almost mandates a business development in that area, where currently it is restricted to residential. Changing the character of that piece of property is what the neighbors don't want. 10 C-) Motion Kennedy moved to adopt the staff report #KA-96-1 as findings of fact, for the Triangle Development Annexation and Zoning Request, and send a favorable recommendation for annexation and zoning of R-5 to City Council. Carlson seconded. A roll call vote was taken on the motion to recommend annexation and a zone classification of R-5. Johnson, Kennedy, Sanders, and Carlson voted aye. Brenneman, Bahr and Hash voted nay. The motion carried on a 4-3 vote in favor. WHITEFISH Next, President Hash introduced a request by Triangle Development STAGE for preliminary plat approval of an eight unit commercial PROFESSIONAL condominium project, filed in conjunction with a zone change PARK / request from County RA-1, a Residential Apartment district, to City PRELIMINARY RA-3, a Residential/Apartment Office district and annexation into PLAT the City of Kalispell. The development is to be known as Whitefish Stage Professional Park. The property being proposed for condominiums is located on the west side of Whitefish Stage Road, approximately 800 feet south of West Evergreen Drive and containing approximately 2.7 acres. This property can be described as Assessor's Tract 113 located in Section 6, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana. Staff Report Wilson gave a detailed presentation of report #KPP-96-1. Based on staff review of the necessary criteria, it is recommended that preliminary plat for Whitefish Stage Professional Park be granted �1 subject to 15 conditions. Staff recommended that condition #8 be deleted and replace it with a condition stating "That a common area maintenance agreement be provided." Add to condition #9 that "The number and placement of fire hydrants..." Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the proposal. In Favor David Greer, agent for the applicant, stated that this property was difficult to work with. Initially, city staff recommended RA-3, and they liked the design, because it has a good traffic flow situation. We reserved an additional 10 feet of right-of-way for the widening of the county road, which is consistent with what was required for the other developments along there. That is what caused the variance request, as it pushed everything back 10 feet. This went through Site Plan Review, and they were happy with it. I don't have any problems with the changes to the conditions, however, I did want to talk about sidewalks. This whole development is ringed with sidewalks and has a parking lot. If there is a sidewalk along Whitefish Stage Road, it will go nowhere. There are no children - right or wrong -- associated with the townhouses to the south. The bike path is going to be on the east side of the street, so I suspect the kids will cross at Evergreen and use the east side of the road. I don't think anyone would use the sidewalk, or the crosswalk, however I don't have a problem with the crosswalk. 11 Skip Stout, said that he would prefer to see this development on that particular piece of property, than what was proposed before. There being no further proponents, the public hearing was opened to opposition. No one spoke in opposition. The public hearing was closed and opened to Board deliberation. Discussion Johnson would hate to add a burden to a developer, however the City's posture has been to require sidewalks whether they connect to anything or not. Kennedy felt we should look at the size of the development, and that there are no sidewalks in the area, at all. There is a pedestrian trail to Edgerton School, which was developed by private interests, and the children are used to that. As long as there are sidewalks within the development, itself, I agree with Mr. Greer, -that a sidewalk on Whitefish Stage would be going nowhere. The proposed bike path going in on the east side of the road is part of the ISTEA program. I have problems with the proposed crosswalk. Painted stripes on the asphalt which won't last long, and will be covered in the winter, and having the children get used to the safety and security of a crosswalk is not appropriate. It is not in the best interest for safety on Whitefish Stage Road in its current condition. If it is deemed appropriate when it is widened, then it can be done. So, I would agree with deleting item #11. If this were a residential development, she would agree with Johnson, that sidewalks be required. Further discussion followed on the crosswalk. Brenneman expressed a concern that there are residential developments all around the site, and after 5:00 p.m. there will be an empty parking lot there. It was argued, however, that putting a crosswalk there encourages children to cross when it is not safe to do so. The highway department can address the issue when the road is widened and the bike path installed. Bahr complimented the developer on a good design on a very limited piece of land, unfortunately, I think this is the wrong area to put it. A professional office building is not limited to weekdays from 8:00-5:00. Motion Kennedy moved to adopt subdivision report #KPP-96-1 as findings of fact, and forward a favorable recommendation for preliminary plat for Whitefish Stage Professional Park to City Council with 14 conditions, as amended. Carlson seconded. On a roll call vote Sanders, Johnson, Carlson, Brenneman, Kennedy and Hash voted aye. Bahr voted nay. The motion carried on a 6-1 vote in favor. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. 12 NEW BUSINESS Kennedy brought up under new business, drafting a letter -to City Council, to send with the transmittal on the Collier zone change with regards to sidewalks and STOP signs at the uncontrolled intersections on Washington Street, as brought up by residents in the neighborhood. Johnson agreed that as a concerned citizen, with the traffic congestion, Washington Street is being used as a minor arterial to avoid the intersection on Highways 2 and 93. Without controls such as STOP signs, someone is going to hit a pedestrian sometime, as it is a bad situation. The safety issue on the entire length of Washington was discussed, and since the Collier proposal brought it up again, it was agreed to send a letter of the Board's concerns to the Council. Zoning Text Wilson referenced some proposed zoning text amendments Amendments which are somewhat controversial, that warranted Board discussion. Kennedy stated that both the issues would involve a great deal of discussion and did not feel it was appropriate to enter into lengthy discussion at this time. Wilson was asked to explain how these items came about for discussion. The Board requested that staff submit a written assessment addressing these two issues, so there will be time to assimilate the information prior to discussion. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:05 P.M. Therese Fox Hash, President 1 APPROVED: Q i Eli-z Ontko, Recording Secretary 13