Loading...
12-13-94 Planning BoardKALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING DECEMBER 13, 1994 CALL TO ORDER The regularly scheduled meeting of the Kalispell City - AND ROLL CALL County Planning Board and Zoning Commission was called to order by President Hash at 7:00 p.m. Board members present were Sanders, DeGrosky, Hodgeboom, Fraser, Hash, Bahr, Carlson, Kennedy and Lopp. John Parsons, Senior Planner represented the Flathead Regional Development Office. Brian Wood, Zoning Administrator represented the City of Kalispell. There were approximately 40 persons in attendance. APPROVAL OF The minutes of the November 16, 1994 meeting were MINUTES approved as written on a motion by Bahr, second by Fraser. All members voted aye. PINE -BUFFALO Hash introduced a request by Stan Pine of Buffalo Head HEAD for a conditional use permit to allow a four-plex at PROPERTIES / the southeast corner of Indian Trail Road and US CONDITIONAL Highway 93 in Kalispell. The property contains USE PERMIT / approximately 13,700 square feet and is zoned RA-1 (Low FOUR-PLEX Density Residential Apartment). Access to the property would be from Indian Trail Road; the proposal would utilized city services. The property is more particularly described as Tract 2DCD in the NE4 of Section 6, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County. Staff Report Parsons presented report #KCU-94-19. The request was evaluated in accordance with the necessary criteria for granting a conditional use permit, and based on the evaluation, staff recommended an eighth condition be added to the conditions of approval to require that "Sidewalks be constructed and street trees planted along Indian Trail Road in accordance with City of Kalispell standards." A letter in opposition was received from Norman K. Huppert, Sr. which was read into the record. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the proposal. In Favor Bruce Lutz, representative for the applicant, said that Stan Pine has owned the property for 15 years. During that time, Developers Diversified has come and gone. In looking at the surrounding land uses in the area, it (' } was felt that this proposal, was the most consistent with existing duplexes, tri-and four-plexes. The size of this property and the location warranted the density. The size of the lot lends itself well to landscaping, traffic circulation and covered parking. 01 He pointed out that there are duplexes and four-plexes on Rising Sun Circle. Stan Pine, the applicant, was in favor of the project. He said that he has owned this property for many years, and had looked at various uses before deciding on a multi -family development. He feels this is "the highest and best use", which is compatible with the surrounding uses. There are several other apartment complexes in the neighborhood, and it is zoned RA-1. There were no other proponents. The public hearing was opened to opponents. Opposition Dave Logan, 119 Indian Trail Road, lives in the first of four houses east of this lot. He was opposed to this project. He stated that Stan Pine does not have a good track record as a developer. The building height for the project is proposed to be 29 feet, which is twice as high as their covenants allow at 15 feet maximum building height. The other multi -family units in that area were built in 1978 as non -conforming uses. The road is too narrow, the intersection with Hwy 93 is very dangerous and difficult to get onto, with poor visibility. The parking is a nightmare, with the duplex next door to him having up to five cars per �) unit, sometimes parking in his driveway. There is a problem with fire protection, and each new development multiplies the risk. There will be an impact on services. With each new multi -family development there will be more children. There are problems with the school bus stop, with kids walking through people's yards and tearing up the landscaping. There needs to be a playground for these kids. He said that in 1978, referring to multi -family housing in Park View Terrace, the City Attorney stated laughingly "they got a high, fast one past you". We don't need any more high, fast ones. The RA-1 zoning got shoved down their throats, and the residents are not willing to accept another zoning compromise. Dean Potter, 113 Indian Trail Road, said that historically he has protested all the other 4-plexes in the neighborhood and he will continue to protest, even though it doesn't do any good. Zoning and covenants are to protect the property owner. This four-plex is inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood, and he urged the Board to deny the permit. Carolyn Grisez, 107 Indian Trail Road, was opposed to the project because of the increased traffic problems. There is a divider in the middle of Indian Trail Road which is never cleared by the City. There is no way to get onto Indian Trail Road with the parking problems, because it is too narrow. If there is a large garbage can in the driveway from this multi -family unit, it 2 !� wil.l further obstruct the street. There is a need for a traffic light at the intersection with Highway 93, because of the congestion and poor visibility. There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed and the meeting opened to Board discussion. Discussion DeGrosky asked about the sight distance and traffic control at the intersection. Parsons responded that sight distance, parking and the placement of the ,garbage cans would be addressed by the Site Plan Review Committee. The Board discussed the surrounding land uses in the area and felt that the four-plex was in character with the neighborhood, as well as the future hospital PUD to the south. Motion Fraser moved to accept report #KCU-94-19 as findings of fact and recommend City Council grant the conditional use permit subject to the eight (8) conditions as set forth by staff. Kennedy seconded. On a roll call vote all Board members voted in favor of granting the conditional use permit to Stan Pine for construction of a four-plex. MEADOW Next, Hash introduced a request by American Land and PARK II / Development, Inc. for preliminary plat approval of a 23 PRELIMINARY lot residential subdivision, known as Meadow Park II, PLAT on 11.9 acres situated immediately south of South Woodland Drive approximately 400 feet south of Kelly Road on the west side of Willow Glen Drive. The subdivision lies in an R-5 Single-Family/Duplex zone. The property is more specifically described as parcels TOGA, 7OH, SCBA and 5CBB in the E2 of Section 20, T28N, R21W, P.M.M., Flathead County. Staff Report Parsons presented report #FPP-94-23A. This plat is a redesign of a development previously presented to the Board. Based on evaluation of the request, staff recommended approving the preliminary plat subject to 24 conditions. Two letters were received and submitted to Board members. One was from Doug Denmark of ReMax, stating a market value of $45,000 for the property. Staff took issue with this value for 11.9 acres and set the market value, as previously stated by the applicant, at $95,000 for 10.4 acres. The other letter was from the Meadow Park Board of Directors in favor of the redesign of the subdivision. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the Meadow Park II subdivision. In Favor Jill Morton, Mallard Drive, is in favor of the new design. Trina Stivers, thanked American Land and Development 3 for addressing neighbor's concerns by the new plan. She asked that the conditions of approval be stated. Parsons read through the 24 conditions of preliminary plat approval. He explained the reason behind condition #12, to avoid a potentially dangerous curve where a car could end up in the slough. Natalie Robinson, Mallard Drive, was also in support of the new design for Meadow Park II. Jay Billmayer, technical assistant for the applicant, explained the design changes and the issues which precipitated them. The original design had a loop road system that connected back to the Meadow Park I Subdivision. The problem arose with the how right-of- way is dedicated in Flathead County, in that they stopped taking roads as public right-of-way, and then started working with gimmicks to allow roads to be created and tax people for the road right-of-way that was actually utilized. We have never agreed with that, and this brings up a classic example of the problems it creates. In the previous subdivision, it did not allow for public access, and it was not intended as a through street, but in response to neighborhood opposition, the design has been reworked to extend the Green Acres road U system, 24 foot paved width with a roadside swale, and no curbs, gutters or sidewalks. He objected to requirement #12 as they wish to avoid having to obtain another Corps of Engineers 404 permit. He referred to the Kalispell Subdivision street design standards to point out that since there are no curbs or sidewalks within a one-half mile of this subdivision, he did not feel that they should have to install curbs, gutters and sidewalks. He did not feel that this was an urban density subdivision requiring urban density improvements. Even though it is an R-5 zone, the overall density in the area is closer to an R-2, rural density, of two dwellings per acre. It is not an urban road system in the area. The Greenbriar Subdivision on Two Mile Drive which also has the potential to be annexed into the City of Kalispell, has 4-foot wide sidewalks on one side of the street. Installing sidewalks will drive up the cost of development. Therefore, they take issue with conditions #10, 11, 12, #13, and #21. Number 13 could be construed as a "taking" of property without compensation to the landowner. He protested item #21 requiring a cash -in - lieu of parkland dedication based on a market value of $95,000. He argued that a structure valued at approximately $50,000, was demolished, therefore the �\1 �j developer lost that value, thus the $45,000 figure. Doug Denmark, spoke in favor of the subdivision, as it will provide affordable housing, and is in character with the neighborhood. He argued that sidewalks, curbs 4 and gutters are out of place as there aren't any sidewalks or curbs within one-half mile of this subdivision. This requirement would add $2,000-$3,000 to each lot, which many people would not be able to afford the extra upfront cost per lot. He thinks this is a well -designed development and looks forward to selling lots. There were no other proponents. The hearing was opened to those in opposition to the project. Opposition Trina Stivers, Mallard Drive, was not opposed to the subdivision, however noted that the Board had approved the first design with street lights, and she requested that this be approved with all the amenities already mentioned, plus street lights. She said that with the problems she is dealing with in front of her house due to the lack of storm water drainage, and no sidewalks, she would have gladly paid an extra $3,000 for a place for her kids to walk. Now, the streets are so narrow that if there is a parked car, cars cannot proceed, and that is the only place for the kids to walk. She knows this is futile to ask for, but she wants it in the record, that there is no park for the kids to play in, so she would like to see the cash -in -lieu be donated to the closest park, which is the Greenacres West park. `--) Jerry Hutchins, 1989 South Woodland, is strongly opposed to the roads accessing onto South Woodland Drive. He did some research and found out that the County does not own the road. He developed it, deeded it back to the County, so he could be out from under it, but the County never accepted it. So, he has to pay for his own snow removal and maintenance, and he objects to paying for 25 other houses. There are not any speed limit signs or stop signs down there for all this increased traffic. Jeffrey Cowan, 23 South Woodland, is not opposed to the development, but he is opposed to the road. Most people who live in the area do not use Willow Glen Drive when they drive to Kalispell. So, 23 families will use the road in front of his house. The road is narrow, there are no STOP signs, street signs, or speed limit signs. The subdivision is great. He is a realtor and he will be happy to sell those lots, but the access has got to be changed. There being no further comment, the public hearing was closed and opened to Board discussion. Discussion DeGrosky recalled that the last time this subdivision --� was before the Board, the five members present felt that the streets should have curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street lights and trees. He asked that the "takings" issue be addressed. Parsons explained that condition 5 #13 does not say "dedicate" a 10 foot ROW, it states that a reservation of 10 feet be indicated on the final plat for future right-of-way on Willow Glen Drive. Lopp questioned the provision in the covenants or the conditions for access to the slough. He expressed concern regarding riparian rights on any designated natural body of water. Parsons assured him that all work in the area will be reviewed and necessary permits will be required. The slough will be owned by the homeowners association, who will be responsible for maintenance and taxes. By concensus, the requirement for "street lights throughout the subdivision" was added to condition #10. Lopp noted that based on public comment from homeowners in subdivisions previously approved, it has been indicated that curbs, gutters and sidewalks would be desireable. In Glacier Village Greens where curbs, gutters and sidewalks were. installed, the atmosphere in the community has gone up significantly, and certainly did not detract from the sale of those lots. Errors made in the past does not mean the Board should continue making those errors, and he would support Crequirement #10 as stated. Mr. Billmayer explained the road system, stating that a loop road with an egress was needed in this subdivision. Each slough crossing requires a 404 permit from the Army Corps of Engineers, and he again requested that a slight curve in the right of way across the slough be granted. Motion Lopp moved to adopt report #FPP-94-23A as findings of fact, and grant preliminary plat approval to Meadow Park II subject to the conditions as amended, to include streetlights in #10, and forward a positive recommendation to the County Commissioners. Kennedy seconded. On a roll call vote, all Board members voted 9-0 in favor of the motion. Robert Sanders declared a conflict of interest and stepped down from the Board for the next two agenda items. SANDERS President Hash introduced a request by Robert and Marjorie Sanders to amend the Lower Side Zoning District by changing the zoning on approximately 186 acres from AG-80 (Agricultural) to AG-20 (Agricultural). The property is generally located south and east of the Lower Valley Road intersection with Somers Stage Road, and is further described as part of the S2 of Section 35, T28N, R21W, P.M.M., Flathead County. 11 Staff Report Parsons presented report #FZC-94-23 which evaluated the zone change request from AG-80 to AG-20 based on the statutory criteria for a zone change. Staff recommended the zone change be granted based on findings of fact. Five letters (two in favor, three opposed) were received which were submitted to Board members and read into the record. A typewritten rebuttal of neighborhood concerns was submitted by Robert Sanders and read for the record. At this point, Parsons announced that prior to the meeting, he had a conversation with Bill Goodman, property owner across the street from the proposed zone change and subsequent subdivision. As per state statute FRDO is required to notify all property owners within 150 feet of a zone chnage. A list of.those property owners is required to be submitted by the applicant and certified by the plat room. Bill's name was not on that list, so there is an apparent procedural error that needs to be considered prior to opening the public hearing. Parsons presented the options for Board action. (1) Open the public hearing asking for proponents and opponents. Close the public hearing and then determine whether or not formal action be taken by the Board, at this time. (2) Not open the public hearing, and continue the case until the January r public hearing, and allow Bill Goodman to have his minimum 15 day notice. The Board asked when Mr. Goodman was notified. He learned of the proposal from an article in the Daily Inter Lake the previous night. The Board expressed concern that other property owners may not have been notified, as well. Mr. Goodman was ,asked if he was willing to waive notice. He answered that he was not prepared to make comments at tonight's meeting. He also felt that taking public comment tonight and then continuing to a later date was ineffective. Parsons reported that he had been in contact with the plat room, and they will review and recertify the list of adjacent property owners. However, that does not help on the night of the public hearing. Lopp mentioned a unique issue in this case, in that the proposer of the zone change is a member of the Planning Board, and the Board must be extra careful so that there is no sense of favoritism or waiving of requirements. Motion Lopp moved to continue the matter until the January meeting, and direct staff to renotify all adjacent property owners. Bahr seconded. Discussion followed. Parsons noted that the public hearing has been noticed and there may be persons in the audience here to testify on the matter, who would be inconvenienced by a continuance of the public 7 I hearing. Hash expressed concern about leapfrogging over the procedure by hearing public input tonight and hearing more at the January meeting. She pointed out that many positions on the Board expire at the end of December, and there may potentially be a different body in January to hear public comments that would not have the benefit of hearing the previous testimony. The motion was restated. On a roll call vote Kennedy, Bahr, Fraser, Lapp, Carlson, Hodgeboom, DeGrosky, and Hash voted in favor of continuing the public hearing on the Sanders zone change until the January meeting, and that all adjacent property owners be properly notified. Discussion followed on procedural processes and the necessity to notify all effected property owners. Fraser left at 9:10 p.m. CLOVERLEAF The final public hearing was to be on a request by ESTATES Robert and Marjorie Sanders for preliminary plat PRELIMINARY approval of a 9 lot residential subdivision on PLAT approximately 186 acres of proposed AG-20 zoned property. The subdivision is to be known as Cloverleaf Estates. Motion Carlson moved to continue the public hearing on the request for preliminary plat approval of Cloverleaf Estates until the January meeting. Bahr seconded. By acclaimation vote the motion carried 7-0 in favor, with Sanders abstaining and Fraser not present. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. NEW BUSINESS The recent Commission action on the adoption of the Flathead County Master Plan was discussed. Expected items to be on the agenda. for the next Planning Board meeting were reviewed. Copies of the updated Kalispell Zoning Ordinance and recently adopted Flathead County Subdivision Regulations were distributed to Board members. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. �r Therese Fox Hash, President 1 eth Ontko, Recording Secretary APPROVED: r Q 0