Loading...
06-13-95KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING JUNE 13, 1995 CALL TO ORDER The regularly scheduled meeting of the Kalispell City -County AND ROLL CALL Planning Board and Zoning Commission was called to order by President Therese Hash at 7:05 p.m. Board members present were Robert Lopp, Milt Carlson, Mike Fraser, Fred Hodgeboom, Pam Kennedy, Mike DeGrosky, Walter Bahr, Robert Sanders, and Therese Hash. The Flathead Regional Development Office was represented by John Parsons, Senior Planner. There were approximately 30 people in the audience. APPROVAL OF DeGrosky felt that the letters he read into the record at the May MINUTES meeting were perhaps misleading. He corrected the minutes of the May 9, 1995 meeting on page 20, second paragraph under Discussion, to delete the last part of the fourth sentence, s�xtrportng--Elie--£-40--�sre--esdgra�tier�-%oi= - # lre--aroma--uttde-r gttes44ftit. The minutes were approved as amended on a motion by Fraser, second by Kennedy. By acclamation vote all members voted aye. Chairman Hash announced to the public that there would be a �\ slight change in the agenda, to act on the second item first. Mr. J Seaman has asked for a 60 day continuance. President Hash excused herself from the Board on this item due to a conflict of interest. Vice -Chairperson Pam Kennedy presided. WEST The first item to be acted on by the Board was introduced, which EVERGREEN was a request by Mike Seaman for an additional 60 day MANOR / continuance of the original 30 day continuance of the hearing on PRELIMINARY a request by Tom Sands on behalf of the Patty Shelton PLAT / Trust/Mike Seaman for preliminary plat approval on 34 acres of CONTINUATION R-3 and proposed R-3 zoned land into a 148 space mobile home park. The project location is on the southeast corner of West Evergreen Drive and River Road approximately 2000 feet west of US Highway 2. The site will be developed utilizing Evergreen Water and Sewer District facilities, have 2 park/open space areas, and 2 access roads (one on West Evergreen Drive and one on River Road). The project is to be known as West Evergreen Manor. Staff Report Parsons stated that the Board has received a request from the applicant for a 60 day continuance. He will present a staff report at the time of the public hearing. Motion Fraser moved to accept Mike Seaman's request for a 60 day continuance of the public hearing on -the preliminary plat for West Evergreen Manor, to be held August 8, 1995. DeGrosky seconded. On a roll call vote Bahr, Lopp, Fraser, DeGrosky, Sanders, Hodgeboom, Carlson and Kennedy voted aye. The motion carried unanimously. Kennedy turned the meeting back to President Hash. 1 OFTEDAHL ZONE Next, Hash introduced a continuation of the hearing on a request CHANGE / by Harold Oftedahl for a change in zone from AG-40 (Agriculture) CONTINUATION to SAG-10 (Suburban Agricultural). The property is approximately 400 acres located along Foys Lake Road south of Foy's Lake. The property is located in the Lower Side Zoning District and is more particularly described in Exhibit "A" of report #FZC-95-04. Parsons said that he haD a number of discussions with the parties to this application for a zone change request. Some of the applicants can benefit from this zone change, other properties are not conducive for splitting, some have larger families. There are a number of problems with the alternatives. His report remained the same as written on April 26, 1995. Motion Lopp moved to reopen the public hearing. DeGrosky seconded. Staff Report Parsons stated that the events remain the same as when staff report #FZC-95-04 was written. The zone change would jeopardize the integrity of the Lower Side Zoning District by introducing a fourfold increase in the density from the AG-40 zone to the SAG- 10 zone. Based on evalution of the statutory criteria for a . zone change, it is recommended the request to change the zone from AG-40 to SAG-10 be denied. Public Hearing Hash restated that the motion was made and seconded to reopen �l the public hearing. By acclamation vote, all members voted aye. The motion carried unanimously. In Favor Dallas Herron, spokesperson for the property owners, displayed a map showing the different ownerships on the subject property. None of the property owners in this discussion are developers. We are all individual families or descendants of families, and have all been neighbors for 50 years. The work we have done together on this project has helped strengthen our committment to preserving our community. Since the last meeting, we have met with John Parsons and the various landowners, and discussed many alternatives. If this were a development, I think it would be easier to discuss, because you could focus on a plan. This is more difficult to visualize. It involves a community with eight landowners and it is difficult to focus on what we are talking about. We considered four different options. The first option was our original request for SAG-10. We discussed PUD type development. The caretaker concept was discussed. We also talked about AG-20 zoning. The PUD might work if it were one landowner. With so many owners with current needs and future needs, it gets complicated. The caretaker exemption was too restrictive, because of the square footage and such, and was not compatible with the families' needs. The AG-20 does satisfy current needs, but the future needs of some of the owners are not met, because some of the lots cannot be split. The original request for SAG-10 was the most suitable option for all involved. �j He showed a map to show what it would look like at the maximum density allowed under the SAG-10. We have given a lot of consideration and thought to what would happen with this request, and the impacts to our community. We expect growth and are willing to accept that. Leonard Oftedahl, wanted to reiterate some concerns that all of us have thought about and pondered upon. The zone change request involves four families instead of just one. He referred to the letters from the Department of State Lands read by Mr. DeGrosky at the last meeting, which had to do with the recommendations for this area, dated September 4, 1992. I feel that in a way, that particular document was misleading to the Commission. I did go to the Department of State Lands and talked with Ted Mead, who is a fire management specialist. Mr. Mead was helpful as far as making recommendations for what we could think about for our options. What we centered on was three things. (1) Slopes, (2) roads, and (3) fire occurrence. Basically, fire occurrence had little to do with being for or against, because fires start anywhere, no matter where you live. Most of the properties are either meadows/hayland or selective cut timber. A couple of forties are fairly thick and have not been cut over very much. So, there is a big mix in this rezoning request. I did some research on the roads. Plum Creek owns land on both sides, and since 1992, they have put in several miles of road. So we have adequate escape routes for all of the neighbors. Next, was the slopes, and the wording in this letter says "a significant portion of this forested area has slopes exceeding 30%, which is the maximum slope for residential construction." The 400 acres in question here is not really in this significant area being talked about. Less than 5% of the area in question has slopes greater than 30%, from my US Forest Service map. All these families build near the county road and not on a cliff. So, the slope issue doesn't really apply. As far as us setting a precedence, any difference in zoning anywhere in the county will set a precedent, because some areas are not the same as other areas. With Plum Creek lands on either side of us, there is no precedent there. They do what they want. The other thing is the density issue. What happens if somebody dies and they sell the place off to someone from out of town, and speculates to make money here. That is a pertinent thing to consider, but things change all the time. There is no guarantee that a forest fire will come through and make our land useless. We do not feel that density is an issue, either. Harold Oftedahl, said he owns 40 acres of this area. This was a unanimous decision and request of the property owners involved here. Some of these 40 acre tracts will stay as they are. At this point in time, there are only two of us that actually intend to do anything. None of us are developers or real estate brokers. We would like to keep the neighborhood the way we've known it for -the last 50 years, with a few small changes. We've all got kids and grandkids, and these properties have been kept in the same families for the last 50 years. We would like to see it stay that way, but now it is involving our own kids, so we have to change something here to accomplish that. The ten acre tracts would help families in the future, so he is in favor. 3 There were no other proponents of the requested zone change. The public hearing was opened to those opposed. No one spoke in opposition. The public hearing was closed and the meeting opened to Board deliberation. Discussion DeGrosky felt that the Board was misled when he read the letters from the Department of State Lands into the record. He said, I was trying to show that fire should not be the sole issue in the zone change request, and indicate that from a purely fire standpoint -- remove the other issues of zone integrity and things like that, the Department's view was that there was room for negotiation. So if -the Board felt that I misled you by reading those letters, that was not my intent. Hash felt that this was a very frustrating position for the Board, as well as the landowners. I recognize that some of the owners have more pressing, immediate needs, and yet others would like to reserve their options. I keep hearing this concept of land being passed down through the family. What we have all seen, that when there has been a split, it goes to a family member and either through death or other economic issues, that land gets transferred or sold to someone else. The land is already split and the ball starts rolling. I know that all of you, at this point in your lives, don't want that to happen. Has anyone considered those kinds of things? How do you propose to keep the integrity as indicated? By looking at the map, one can see the potential density. All those landowners could split their land without any review. The subdivision review process was explained, as well as the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act of 1992, which changed the occasional sale and family transfer exemptions. Lopp noted that a number of changes have occurred since the previous meeting. One is the Commissioners' action regarding the Foys Lake Road, voting unanimously to place it as the number one priority for rebuilding. We have to recognize that this will be a major transportation corridor. In looking at this area, I do not see the problems of SAG-10 as defined. There is very heavy development around Foys Lake, as well as all over the hillside, so there is an urban environment along the Foy Lake corridor. The SAG-10 would be providing a buffer between that heavier urban environment and the AG-40, which would remain up those steeper slopes. As was pointed out, only 5% of the area in question is steep, so the issues of over 30% slopes and fire hazard is not as high. We are talking about 400 acres, which is a significant amount of land that is continguous. The stream bottoms and meadows makes it a reasonable transition to the hilly areas surrounding it, which should stay as AG-40. Going back to when we initially approved this zoning classification, I think we were under a lot of pressure to get the document done. We looked at it as a broad wash and zoned the whole thing AG-40. We didn't look at the exact usages for a more accurate drawing of the zone classifications. 4 Hodgeboom expressed his concerns regarding this request. Part of it is the scope of it, and from my standpoint, the need. We have to be concerned about the need for this density in this particular area, because once we approve that change, that property will all be subdivided into 10 acre lots and built out. I understand the applicants needs and desires, but we have to be careful about approving zone changes based on individual needs. That could be justification for changing the zone on every privately owned parcel. Every single person might have that need, so therefore I think these personal needs hold no assurance in the future on how that property is going to be developed. This is a poor justification for changing the zone. I have real concerns about the precedent of changing this. I don't fully understand the need for that density on all those parcels. DeGrosky had concern when we compare this proposal to Orchard Ridge. Orchard Ridge is not a shining example of good land use or of sensible building in a fire environment. So, I don't think saying that the folks in Orchard Ridge can do that, is a good justification to continue bad land use. I am really torn on this one. Falling back on my area of expertise, and not on my opinion, the green square, the orange square, the blue square, and -the yellow square, would all be a problem from a fire standpoint. Everyone is focusing on the fire issue, but John has raised the issues of integrity of the zone, and what the Master Plan �) envisions. According to the Master Plan the area envisions silvacultural/agricultural uses. Bahr granted that there would be no integrity if the SAG-10 were approved, as there is potential for at least 40 homes in the area. However, I do note that no one spoke in opposition to the proposed change. There is undoubtedly fire danger, but there is in all forested areas. We have other examples, such as Lion Mountain, that is probably 10 times the fire danger. Those who choose to live in heavily forested areas are going to have to learn to live with fire. Public agencies are providing the information for how to survive in fire hazard areas. There is minimal slope in the area, and are considerably less than homesites in the Lone Pine or Orchard Ridge areas. I see this as a continuation of the Orchard Ridge, the Lone Pine and Foys Canyon area. All those are much higher density. These are not considered prime agricultural lands. I would much rather see these subdivided into 10 acre lots than 10 acres of prime agricultural lands in the valley, which has been the trend lately. The transporation corridors are getting better. Fraser commented that he respected the motives of the property owners and the predicament they find themselves in. I sat on the Board during the zoning of the Lower Side Zoning District and I believe that careful consideration was given to the recommendations for AG-40 in this particular area, especially on discussions that occurred east of here on the other side of the mountain. We made this consideration with regards to adjoining ownership, Plum Creek lands and the nature of the area, and what we felt the master plan indicated for it. I have concerns with the density, and the comment about Plum Creek that "they do what I `l they want". They are a major landowner and at some point production on those AG-40's will change from timber to the next product, which is typically lots. I feel that the AG-40 is a safeguard and when gone, the integrity of the area does change. The request for this zone is too far reaching, it is too broad based and should be more specific to those areas, with more consideration to alternatives. Carlson said that the last time we went through the record thoroughly and it looks to me like a salad with apples, oranges and pears, with some grapes thrown in. I find it hard to be planning on that kind of basis. We are asking too many things of the zone change to accomodate the desires of individuals. I am not seeing clustering considered or other options that are available. I like people getting together to come in with one package, instead of fruit salad. I find it difficult to lose the integrity of the AG-40 that has been carefully thought out for this area. Kennedy said that based on the comments from Mr. Herron and Mr. Oftedahl, I am finding myself to believe that this is a transition area. I think that the fact that 5% of the area is greater than 30% slopes is a valid argument. I believe that people who wish to develop in problem fire areas are doing so with their own knowledge. I do not believe that in the high fire areas that they will develop into 10 acre lots. I think that we are seeing here the maximum density, and I don't see it as being inappropriate. The development has definitely gone in that area. The neighbors did bring this in as a package. It is sorta of like a PUD, in a sense, because they are all willing to buy into the SAG-10. Additional roads will be built as development happens. Hash agreed with the concerns expressed about the SAG-10 zone change. I have some real concerns. It is not appropriate to develop that area, and although we try to zone for the future, what we are being asked to do is to zone in a vacuum for the needs of one or two people. This raises the question of spot zoning, and although this may not classify as a spot zone, it is certainly a zone change to meet some very specific needs of one family. It is my understanding that at this time, it is only one family that desires the change. I, too, was on the Board when we discussed the zoning of this area, and we spent many a night considering this. I think the AG-40 designation was considered, knowing that there were residents up there, knowing the land around Foys Lake would continue to develop. Yes, there are 10 and 5 acres lots in Lone Pine Estates and Orchard Ridge. This area is not intended to be highly intense. The proposal is not in conformance with the text, and we are to read the map and text together. I have some real concerns about the precedence of the change. I know that when we addressed the Valley View area, people argued vehemently for the desire to subdivide for if "what if gramma gets sick and we want to sell an acre?" Again, a very, very narrow feeling of "let me do with my land what I want to". I can't help but feel that -the domino effect will be started. So, Irrespective of the slope, irrespective of the fire, I think the discussion about that has been very accurate. My major concern 0 is the integrity of the zone, the retention of the existing zone until it is more appropriate to change. There is no doubt that there will be a time when it will be ready to be split and all those landowners will be standing in line to split it. But, I just don't see it right now. DeGrosky asked if the SAG-10 fit into the master plan designation for agricultural/silvacultural? Parsons responded by reading the definition for SAG-10 "A district to provide and preserve agricultural funcitons and to provide a buffer between urban and unlimited agricultural uses, encouraging separation of such uses in areas where potential conflict of uses will be minimized." This is not an urban area. There is some R-2 in the vicinity, but this particular request does not act in any way, shape or form, as a buffer to that R-2 zone, which is actually considered a suburban zone with 1/2 acre minimum lot size. That is not an urban density. So, it does not meet that definition. It is in a forested area, but you are not in the severe slopes that we saw in the Lister zone change request, to the northwest. In time, this area will probably be developed. This may be one of the first areas developed. There have been many inquiries about the possibility of changing the zoning in this area. This just happens to be the second request that has come before the Board. There will be more requests. I guarantee you that if this gets approved, they will come a lot sooner. Lopp argued that we are looking at a transition between R-2, SAG-5 and SAG-10 is a reasonable intermediate in that AG-40. As far as integrity of the zone, we are looking at 400 acres. Parsons said that there are literally thousands of acres zoned AG-40 in the Lower Side Zoning District. This splits the AG-40 in two east from west, from Foys Lake down -to the unzoned area. I cannot justify the configuration as a transition zone. We are talking about the integrity of the entire southwest quadrant of -the planning jurisdiction. Lopp confirmed that the southern edge of this property is the boundary of the planning jurisdiction, and so south of this there is no zoning in place. So, he noted that the next 40 acres south of this could do anything they want. Parsons explained that even though the area Lopp mentioned is unzoned, any development would still have to conform with the Master Plan. Lapp asked what restrictions would be placed on the unzoned area? He argued that we have an AG-40 zone next to unzoned land. Parsons said I get the impression that what you are saying is that everywhere we have a zoned area in the Kalispell planning jurisdiction abutting an unzoned area, the unzoned area be used as a justification for a zone change to a higher density. 7 Motion Hodgeboom made the motion to adopt FRDO report #FZC-95-04 as findings of fact and forward a recommendation for denial of the zone change from AG-40 to SAG-10. Carlson seconded. On a roll call vote Hodgeboom, DeGrosky, Carlson, Fraser and Hash voted aye. Lopp, Bahr, Kennedy and Sanders voted no. The motion carried on a 5-4 vote to recommend denial of the requested zone change. HIRD Hash introduced -the next item which was a request by the City of ANNEXATION / Kalispell on behalf of Deborah Hird for annexation to the City of RA-1 ZONE Kalispell with an initial zoning classification of RA-1, Low Density Multi -Family Residential. The parcel contains approximately 0.5 acres located about 150 feet east of 5th Avenue East and 1,000 feet south of 18-th Street East. The property is that portion of the NE4 of Section 20, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana. Staff Report Parsons presented report #KA-95-6, which evaluated the request for the Hird Addition No. 266 for a city zone classification of RA-1 upon annexation into the City. Staff recommended that the RA-1 zone be granted upon annexation of the subject property. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the proposal. No one spoke in favor or in opposition to the proposed zone classification upon annexation. The public hearing was closed and the meeting opened to Board discussion. Motion Fraser moved to accept staff report #KA-95-6 as findings of fact and recommend to zone the subject property RA-1 upon annexation. DeGrosky seconded. On a roll call vote the motion carried unanimously in favor. BOLLER Hash introduced a request by the City of Kalispell on behalf of Rex ANNEXATION / Boller for annexation to the City of Kalispell with an initial zoning RA-1 ZONE classification of RA-1, Low Density Multi -Family Residential. The parcel contains approximately 18,300 square feet located approximately 150 feet east of 5th Avenue East, 400 feet south of 14th Street East. The property is that portion of the SW1/4 of Section 17, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana. Staff Report Parsons noted that the subject property is 400 feet south of 14th Street East, instead of 18th Street as listed in the agenda. Parsons presented report #KA-95-5. Based on the evaluation of the statutory criteria for the requested zone, staff recommended that the subject property be zoned RA-1 upon annexation into the City. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened. No one spoke either in favor or in opposition to the proposal. The public hearing was closed and opened to Board discussion. Discussion In spite of the incorrect address published in the legal notice, the Board established beyond a doubt that the adjacent property owners were legally notified by individual notices which included a map of the location. 8 Motion Bahr moved to adopt report #KA-95-5 as findings of fact and forward a favorable recommendation to zone the property RA-1 upon annexation. Fraser seconded. On a roll call vote all members present voted aye. The motion carried unanimously. FAIRWAY BLVD The next item was a request by the City of Kalispell for annexation TOWNHOUSES to the City of Kalispell with an initial zoning classification of R-3, ANNEXATION / Urban Single Family Residential. The property is known as R-3 ZONE Fairway Boulevard Townhouses and will annex that portion of the subdivision not already annexed, also known as Phases VI, VII, and VIII; including all common areas, developed, and undeveloped land contained therein not previously annexed. Phase VIII being that area contained inside the circle created by Fairway Boulevard. The properties are located approximately 1/2 mile south of West Evergreen Drive on the west side of Whitefish Stage Road and have direct access from Whitefish Stage Road via Fairway Boulevard. The property is located in a portion of the NE4 of Section 6, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana. Staff Report Parsons presented an overview of report #KA-95-7. Based on evaluation of the statutory criteria staff recommended that the property be zoned R-3 upon annexation. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened. No one spoke either in favor or in opposition to the proposal. The public hearing was closed and opened to Board discussion. Motion Kennedy moved to accept report #KA-95-7 as findings of fact and forward a favorable recommendation to City Council to zone the property R-3 upon annexation. Bahr seconded. Lapp brought up that the Fairway Boulevard development are currently in a lawsuit regarding age discrimination. The covenants for this development restrict it to adult only without meeting the federal and state requirements for that. They are facing legal action which includes the County Commissioners and the City Council. We should have read the covenants, and been aware of -the law change in 1991. DeGrosky asked that by recommending approval of the land use, potentially the Board could have been named in the lawsuit? Hash noted that this development has been ongoing since 1979, and the covenants perhaps were carried through for each phase without being reviewed each time. Lopp countered that -the covenants are part of the packet when we approve a development. He wanted to bring it up while discussing this property, although it has no relevance to the zone change request. Hash wanted to discuss this matter under New Business. Staff said that this issue should not be discussed, as the matter is being litigated. On a roll call vote Fraser, Hodgeboom, Carlson, Lopp, Bahr, Sanders, DeGrosky, Kennedy and Hash voted aye. The motion carried unanimously. MYREN Hash introduced a request by James and Shana Myren for ANNEXATION / annexation to the City of Kalispell with an initial zoning R-3 ZONE classification of R-3, Urban Single Family Residential. The property is known as Parcel 5, Certificate of Survey 2031. The property is located approximately 110 feet west of Garland Street approximately 1,000 feet north of Three Mile Drive, access from Garland Street is provided by a 20 foot easement along the north side of Lot 9, Block 8 of Sunset Addition Number 4. The property is further described as a portion of the SE4 of Section 1, Township 28 North, Range 22 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana. Staff Report Parsons presented report #KA-95-8. Based on the evaluation of the necessary criteria, staff recommended that the requested zone of R-3 be approved upon annexation. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the proposal. In Favor Tim Stracener, Benchmark Homes, representing the applicant, spoke in favor of the proposal. The primary reason for the annexation request was that initially the property was serviced by a 60 foot easement providing utilities and ingress/egress to the l property. The easement was abandoned and a new easement written for off of Garland. My clients purchased the property to build a single family home. In this case, when applying for a septic permit, and being this close to city services and we have an easement through it, the county does not want to grant a septic permit. It is mandated that if you are located within a certain distance from the sewer main, then you must hook in rather than be on a septic system. I learned tonight that the adjacent landowners have some concerns about the easements. Jim Myren, the applicant, hoped the Board would look favorably at this proposal. They bought the property to build a single family home on it. We have talked with all the neighbors and discussed our plans, and all seem to be agreeable with them. The property owner to the south has concern about the easements. Opposition Daryl Newall, the adjacent property owner to the south, said that they are not opposed to the Myrens building a home. Their concerns are about -the access to the property, as there are no easements on record. No one else spoke either in favor or in opposition to the proposal. The public hearing was closed and opened to Board discussion. Discussion Mr. Newall was informed that easements are a separate issue from annexation and zoning. He was referred to the Plat Room or FRDO -' to get his questions answered. The road easement was discussed, although it has no bearing on the zoning. Lopp confirmed that the existing row of houses adjacent to this proposal are zoned SAG-10. 10 Motion Fraser moved to accept report #KA-95-8 as findings of fact and recommend that the zone classification of R-3 be approved upon annexation. Kennedy seconded. On a roll call vote Sanders, Bahr, Carlson, Hodgeboom, Lopp, Fraser, Kennedy, DeGrosky and Hash voted aye. The motion carried unanimously. FLATHEAD Next, Hash introduced a request by Flathead Industries for the INDUSTRIES Handicapped for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a seven (7) unit CONDITIONAL. apartment complex on Lots 9 and 10 of Block 52, Kalispell Original USE PERMIT / Addition. The address of the properties are 217 and 229 4th APARTMENT Avenue West. This request includes -the construction of a two COMPLEX story apartment complex on the northerly side of the property, 9 parking spaces, and landscaped areas. Access would be from 4th Avenue West and the alley, -the project would be connected to City water and sewer. Staff Report Parsons gave a presentation of report #KCU-95-02. The request was reviewed in accordance with the necessary criteria and based on that evaluation, staff recommended granting the conditional use permit subject to nine (9) conditions. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the project. In Favor Susan Moyer, speaking as a representative for Flathead Industries for the Handicapped who are building the complex; as a representative of Flathead County who has sponsored a federal grant to make this project a reality; and as a representative for the City of Kalispell that has contributed a considerable amount of our tax dollars to this. Immediately to the east of this property is a very large complex that has existed for years, which is a senior citizen condo. Immediately to the north is a school for GED graduates. The two lots that we have acquired on behalf of Flathead Industries are probably some of the most substandard units that have existed in town. This project is for the exclusive use of physically disabled individuals. We have worked long and hard to take a small site and make it compatible with the neighborhood. We have been sensitive to the site, knowing that -the original Conrad house is across the street. The people who occupy these units will not drive. The reason we looked long and hard for this site and the reason we are putting so many units on it as we possibly can, is because these are people who need to walk to their jobs, and stores. They are not going to be generating any traffic. I realize that traffic is a topic of discussion in granting a conditional use permit. We have one developmentally disabled couple that we have temporarily relocated into our Courtyard facility. They will move back into this project to live for the rest of their lives. They will not be driving. That's the nature of this project. Eagle Transit will do pick up and delivery with their bus for the handicapped. The City of Kalispell bought the site and Flathead County brought federal dollars in. We will transfer from the County, and the site will ^) get locked in with warranty deed restrictions. If it should ever -' sell for any . other use, then they have to address the parking issue. Right now, we are taking care of it for the intent that it is meant to be for. We also have not -for -profit dollars in this, which locks the project into 51+ years to remain in the use for physically disabled people. There were no other speakers either in favor or in opposition to the project. The public hearing was closed and the meeting opened to Board deliberation. Discussion Kennedy was excited by the project and felt it was a tremendous asset to the City. The location is appropriate and helps eliminate some blight. The development looks to future needs for parking and will provide housing for low income and no income members of our community. Fraser echoed those sentiments. Parsons suggested " that condition #5 be modified to delete the phrase because you don't grant zoning/land use based on ownership. The Board agreed to this amendment. Motion DeGrosky moved to adopt FRDO report #KCU-95-02 as findings of fact and forward a favorable recommendation to City Council to approve the conditional use permit subject to the nine (9) conditions as amended. Bahr seconded. On a roll call vote Bahr, Fraser, DeGrosky, Hodgeboom, Lopp, Kennedy, Sanders, Carlson, and Hash voted in favor of granting the conditional use permit to Flathead Industries to construct a 7-unit apartment complex. ASHLEY HILL Hash introduced a request by Tom Sands on behalf of Robert L. PRELIMINAY and LaDonna Monk for preliminary plat approval on 62.9 acres of PLAT County R-1 zoned land into a 32 lot single family residential subdivision and 4 parcels for park purposes. The project location is on the north side of US Highway 2 approximately 2.5 mile west of Kalispell, east of West Valley Drive. The project has approximately 2400 foot of highway frontage. The site will be developed utilizing community water facilities, individual sewerage disposal, and three access roads to US Highway 2. The project is to be known as Ashley Hill. Staff Report Parsons gave a detailed presentation of report #FPP-95-11. The request was evaluated in accordance with the necessary criteria for a major subdivision. Based on review of the plat, staff recommended preliminary plat approval subject to 24 conditions. One letter was received from Robert and Catherine Prosser expressing their concerns about the proposed development, a copy of which was submitted to Board members and included as part of the record. Public Hearing The public hearing was opened to those in favor of the project. In Favor Tom Sands, technical representative for the applicant, explained that a preliminary plat for this property was approved in 1979 with 12 conditions. Economic conditions changed, so the Monks did not proceed. The original proposal was reviewed and changed to conform with the R-1 zoning and is again being submitted. Monitoring wells have been tested since 1979, and there are no problems with groundwater. Parklands is probably the biggest 12 issue they have with the staff report. Park "A" is useable, and can be developed into a parkland area away from the highway. There is plenty of room for a tennis court or whatever for the homeowner's use. Park "B" is just some leftover property from Lot 16, but it is nice to have an open area throughout the project. Park "C", again, is an open area where people can walk around the project to Park "D", which has been a wetlands area, but is dried up now. I don't see any reason why a wetland or a marshland couldn't be a park. Woodland Park is a wetland. You can look at parkland two different ways. It can be land for playgrounds or as open space for a feeling of being outdoors. Glacier Park has a lot of over 30% slopes and wetlands, and it is still a park. We have no problem adding to the parks to meet the size requirements. On condition #10, the County Commissioners have told me that they have issued letters to planning staff that they will not recommend that private roads be open to the public. I have dealt with this on several subdivisions for the last 6 months and every time they have said no, they will not recommend or require these roads be open to the public, because then the county is responsible and liable for those roads. These are private roads, and they are open to the public as far as the public going to visit, but not open to the public as far as using roller skates or skateboards, what have you going up and down the streets. He questioned the drainage plan in condition #14. I am not engineer, but no net increase of surface runoff, I don't CJ think that is possible. You are going to get more runoff with more streets, etc. Lots 26, 27, and 28 do contain over 30% slopes, but I foresee these being built with a daylight basement type of a structure. I apologize for two lots being less than one acre. Those will be one acre. Being no other speakers in favor of the proposal, the public hearing was opened to those opposed. Opposition Ray Cannan, property owner to the east, said that he finds himself in a difficult position of having to stand up in opposition, not because I am opposed to the project. I think it is a very good project and I would not mind seeing it developed adjacent to my property. I would like to make a few comments. I am concerned with the staff's report that the parks are not being accepted as parks or an open area. I own about four acres where my business is located -- a cabinet maker's shop, and I have about ten employees. We produce dust, noise and odors from paint, and I believe that the park on site D particularly forms a buffer. We are operating in the R-1 zone, which was zoned in October 1994. We intend to continue operating the business. We would like to have as much buffer as possible between our operation and the Park "D" parcel. We think that is an acceptable method of isolating the prospective homeowners from the effects of our operation. Adiitionally, we would like to suggest that the covenants reflect to the potential homeowners that there is a business that will continue to operate with the conditions of that operation, so that homeowners will not be mislead into thinking they are buying a piece of tranquil living space. I think it is very important that potential homeowners know -the facts about 13 the land uses in the surrounding area. Other than that, we endorse Bob Monk's efforts to produce this land use. Jerry Anderson, said that he is not opposed to this being subdivided, at all. But I do have some concerns as to the park "C". I have talked to Tom Sands and he says that the property lines can be changed, but I want to go on official record concerning this Park "C". This parcel is just south of my place. This north facing hill is covered with some very mature Doug fir and Ponderosa pine. It is the only stand of conifers on the whole place. The rest of this is basically open grass with some stands of aspen on it. This stand of timber is very nice, it has trails and is a good place to go hiking. It is a great place for kids to play. It would really add to this development. I'm afraid if it is made into lots, someone will try to build on that side hill and cut the trees out. I would like to see the line changed so that it runs to the top of the hill to preserve the stand of timber and include it with the park. A letter from Robert and Catherine Prosser dated June 12, 1995, was read into the record and made a part thereof. Their concerns focused on the traffic problems, and whether the development will impact the water system and the quality of their wells. There being no other opponents, the public hearing was closed and the meeting opened to Board discussion. Discussion DeGrosky said that he had conferred with the fire chief, who stated he was in favor of the subdivision and was happy with the conditions, except he would like to review the covenants. Bahr observed that this property borders West Valley Drive and asked if access were considered onto West Valley Drive? Tom Sands that this property does not have the legal access to make a 60' ROW on West Valley Drive. There is a curve there that would not be an acceptable approach. The issue of private roads within the subdivision was discussed. The County will not take on the maintenance of private roads. Tom Sands felt that it was a liability issue, but the developer will not put up signs stating that they are closed to the public. The County will not take on the maintenance of private roads. It will be indicated on the face of the final plat that the roads are privately owned. DeGrosky commented on the parklands issue and felt that condition #19 was unreasonable, particularly if Park "C" were to be expanded. I would like to see the parks expanded that would eliminate that issue and make some very steep slopes unavailable for building. I would be in favor of eliminating #19 in exchange for an expanded park "C". Fraser said it is a constant stuggle between developers and the Parks Department as to whether to have a homeowner's park or pay cash. That should be settled on a county level. I think our 14 recommendation would be to increase Park "C" to include the hillside. Whether or not -to eliminate condition #19 was debated. Parsons read the criteria for parklands from the subdivision regulations. Open areas for passive recreation is not included in the definition. DeGrosky felt that we are talking about the principle here. I see no incentive to the developer to provide parks, eliminate lots, and they still make them pay cash in lieu. These people could have significant parklands within their subdivision that would not be a burden on the county. The Parks Department seem -to have a very narrow view of what constitutes a park. They are in this development mode that if it is not a developed park with a swing set, it is not a park. Lopp suggested that we look at how we define parklands, because we have also been hardnosed about the 50' riparian setback, so conceptually we have worked towards natural areas, instead of defining them as parks with tennis courts or playground equipment. We do not have any way to go to say let's just leave it natural and recognize that those kind of uses are beneficial, as well. These subdivisions depend on what month of what year you came in as to what is acceptable or not acceptable. Condition #19 was left as is, as it is stated in the regulations. C� Fraser strongly suggested that condition #14 be deleted, as condition #2 adequately provides for the drainage requirements. The Board agreed by consensus. Motion Lopp moved to adopt report #FPP-95-11 as findings of fact and forward a recommendation to the County Commissioners for approval of the preliminary plat for Ashley Hill subject to the conditions as amended, with the deletion of #14. Hodgeboom seconded. Discussion followed. Fraser felt it was of value to preserve open space and take them out of development, and feel it is a worthwhile stance of the Planning Board. Kennedy argued that it constituted a redesign of the plat. Parsons pointed out that increasing the size of Park "C" was proposed by the developer and therefore he can submit a revised plat. All the discussion on the matter will be reflected in the minutes. Carlson agreed with Fraser that the sense of the Board should be conveyed to the Commissioners concerning open space. Kennedy said that Park "D" needs to remain as proposed. DeGrosky said this was a perfect example of an unintended use. Because we are sticking to the regulations, we are going to remove a park or piece of open space from the subdivision, and do something that the adjacent landowner doesn't want done. He 15 could still make it a homeowner's park, but is stuck with having to pay the cash in lieu fee. Amended Motion Fraser moved to amend the conditions to add a condition in place of the deleted #14 to state: "To increase Park "C" to include the forested hillside that is currently contained in the north boundary of Lots 26, 27, 28." DeGrosky seconded. On a roll call vote Carlson, Hodgeboom, DeGrosky, Bahr, Sanders, Lopp, Fraser and Hash voted aye. Kennedy voted no. The motion carried 8-1 in favor of -the condition to increase Park "C" as indicated. Motion The motion was restated. On a roll call vote Fraser, Hodgeboom, Bahr, Carlson, Sanders, Kennedy, Lopp, DeGrosky, and Hash voted aye to grant conditional preliminary plat approval for Ashley Hill. OLD BUSINESS Kennedy updated the Board on City Council activities, and they anticipate meeting with the Planning Board in August or September to discuss the topic of impact fees. DeGrosky reminded the Board to discuss the intent of the SAG zones, since they are not really large enough for agricultural uses. Parsons said that he did not really mean to cut you off on the Flathead County Master Plan. When we start talking about areas outside of the Kalispell planning jurisdiction, we will typically consider, under certain circumstances, five acre minimum size for being in conformance with the Master Plan. Under other certain circumstances, it is considered a dense agricultural use. Parsons met with Fish, Wildlife & Parks and they will provide our office with maps depicting habitat, which will help solidify what we are supposed to be preserving. This information will help set the tone of the meeting for what it is we are trying to do in this county, because it is not only the in lieu fees and impacts created by the subdivisions on manmade environments, but what we are doing to the natural environment as well. In addition, I got some more information on in lieu fees from Gallatin County. There was no other old business. NEW BUSINESS Hash brought up the issue raised regarding the lawsuit involving the Fairway Boulevard Townhouses. Even though the original covenants were drafted some time ago, are they not reviewed each at each phase? Parsons responded that this gets into the legal ramifications of what the responsibilities of the county are. That is for the courts to decide whether or not the covenants were appropriate at the time they were reviewed, approved or disapproved subject to subsequent phases. Under an existing approved development plan, there are too many legal ramifications to answer that. Hash posed a different question. On new developments, who reviews the covenants? Parsons said that FRDO reviews -the 16 C� covenants for conformance to zoning and subdivision regulations. DeGrosky said that from his viewpoint, the pervue of FRDO and this Board is land use. Nobody is guarding the gate on human rights. Parsons said that the County Attorney's office reviews -the covenants. Discussion followed on who reviews what from a legal standpoint. Kennedy interjected that she did not feel comfortable having this discussion. Being a City Council member, and if it is true that the City of Kalispell is involved with this, then I believe it is not appropriate for the Board to be discussing it at this point. Once the courts decide what the determination is, -then at that point, if there are liability issues, then it would be appropriate. This is Mike DeGrosky's last meeting. DeGrosky was thanked for his service on the Planning Board. A replacement will be on Board for the July meeting. Fraser will not be at the August meeting. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 a.m. ----------------------------- Therese Fox Hash, President f APPROVED: 6 E§-Ir'ab Ontko, Recording Secretary J 17