Loading...
08-08-95KALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING AUGUST 8, 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 at 7:02 p.m. by Vice Chairperson Pam Kennedy. Board members present were Robert Lopp, Milt Carlson, Fred Hodgeboom Michael Conner Robert Sanders and Pam Kennedy. Therese Hash arrived at 7:01 p.m. and had a conflict of interest on the first agenda item, so recused herself from presiding. Absent Board members were Walter Bahr and Michael Fraser (excused). John Parsons, Senior Planner represented the Flathead Regional Development Office. Brian Wood, Zoning Administrator, represented the City of Kalispell. There were approximately ten people in the audience. APPROVAL OF The minutes of the July 11, 1995 meeting were approved as MINUTES submitted on a motion by Carlson, second by Hodgeboom. All members present voted aye. OLD BUSINESS WEST Under old business was -the continuance of consideration of a EVERGREEN request on behalf of the Patty Shelton Trust/Mike Seaman for MANOR preliminary plat approval on 34 acres for a 148 space mobile home PRELIMINARY park. The project location is on the southeast corner of West PLAT / Evergreen Drive and River Road approximately 2000 feet west of CONTINUANCE US Highway 2. The site is proposed to 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) and be known as West Evergreen Manor. A portion of the property is zoned R-3 and a portion is zoned R-1; a zone change request to zone all the property R-3 has been denied by the County Commissioners. Staff Report Parsons announced that a letter submitted by the applicant's representative, Tom Sands, was distributed to Board members, requesting a 30 day continuance to redesign the development to be compatible with the underlying zoning district. Prior to giving -the staff report and making the recommendation, staff asked that the Board take action on the request for continuance. The request has been continued twice before. The letter from Tom Sands was read for the record. Discussion Lapp commented -that it was a reasonable request. There was a lot of opposition to this proposal, and may still be, but the 1 developers have recognized not only our wishes, which were supported by the Commissioners, but also recognition of the neighborhood sentiments. Hodgeboom questioned if a continuance was appropriate, based on a substantial redesign of what we originally reviewed and heard testimony on. Lopp agreed and said that his support was based on continuance of the public hearing, as well as renoticing the public hearing in the paper. Motion Lopp moved to grant the request for a continuance of 30 days, to the September meeting. The public hearing on this application, will also be continued and that there will be a renotification of said public hearing. Sanders seconded. On a roll call vote Hodgeboom, Carlson, Conner, Lopp, Sanders, and Kennedy voted in favor. Hash abstained. The motion to continue the public hearing on the redesign of the preliminary plat for West Evergreen Manor passed on a 6-0-1 vote. It was noted for the record that the meeting was turned over to President Therese Hash. OMOHRENWEISER Hash introduced the next item under old business which was a ZONE CHANGE / continuance of consideration of a request by Richard and Judith R-3 TO RA-1 / Mohrenweiser for a zone change from R-3 to RA-1 on approximately CONTINUANCE 2 acres. The property is located north of the Underhill Subdivision, 300 feet north of Arizona Street, and west of US Highway 93. The property is described as part of Tract 6B in the NW4 Section 7, Township 28 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana. Staff Report Parsons stated that this application was continued from the previous meeting to allow the applicant an opportunity to explore alternate zones. The original request was for a zone change from R-3 to RA-1. The applicant was requested to look at the possibility of an R-4 zone change instead of the RA-1. The RA-1 meets all the necessary criteria to be rezoned and staff has recommended approval of the RA-1 zoning. At -the public hearing, there was concern about the density on size and access to this particular piece of property. However, it is my understanding that the applicant has considered the R-4 and has decided to go forward with the RA-1 zone request. The public hearing was closed at the previous meeting and continued with the understanding that it would be reopened for public comment. N Public Comment The public hearing was opened to those wishing to speak in favor of the zone change. In Favor Jean Johnson, Stokes & Associates, representing the Mohrenweisers in this request. I would like to approach this more from a mechanical standpoint. We want to assure the Board that we are not asking for another continuance. We have made the election to continue as applied. Having appeared before the Board and having dealt with these situations before, I would like to make a couple of points. At the last hearing we had, Mr. Hofert preceeded us in a request for a zone change. The Board very explicitly said that he was not complying with the master plan. We came along, and the staff report said that we were complying with the master plan, we are complying with the North Meridian Neighborhood Plan. The Board then commented and said that well, the master plans are not really cast in concrete, and they can be maneuvered. With my experience when I present a plan to FRDO staff at a pre -application meeting and suggest that we do something that is not in compliance with the master plan, they would say 'good luck'. We have to determine, do we have a master plan and are we complying with it? The staff report says 'yes'. The other point I would like to bring up is that we should not have spot zoning. That is a loose term. We are not going to have one little square that is R-1, R-2 or R-4 or whatever. FRDO has a real good come back on that and it is called transition zoning. That isn't necessarily the case in our application. We have R-3 to the south and north, RA-1 adjacent to the west, and H-1 to the east. I am talking about consistency and the mechanics more so than anything. I appreciate the neighborhood concerns. However, when we create master plans, it is guidelines for us. What am I to tell the client next week when I say 'ok here is what you want to do, and it complies with the master plan, but I don't think you are going to get it.' Most would go to someone else. Nonetheless, the mechanical issue that I wanted to address before the Board, was that the suggestion was made that we go to an R-4. That would take care of -everything. Does it really? We only need 6,000 square feet per lot to comply with R-4 to create duplexes. That gives us 9 duplex lots or 18 family units. So, is the Board accomplishing what they want to do by going to a different zoning to reduce density? In addition, there are physical constraints on -the site. It is not a nice flat 2 acres of land. There is a hillside there and only so much can be done. We want the opportunity to best apply what we can do and we think the end result will be minimizing density. Richard Mohrenweiser, said -the last time I was here, the Board wanted to know what are we going to do with this property. So, my wife and I came up with four lots, with a two story 5-plex, a �— two story 4-plex, a two story triplex, and a two story duplex. I \t would also like to point that over the years that we've had this 3 property, we have been able to negotiate and get into this area, the natural gas line, the water line and power line in our easement. Because of that, this whole Underhill area was all paved in here for people. We have all the utilities already on the property. We plan to run the sewer down through the access I own, down to Meridian Road. That way, we have the slope to run the sewer line down and we wouldn't be disturbing the Underhill area. I still request the RA-1 zone. No one else spoke in favor of the proposal. Opposition The public hearing was opened to opponents of the proposal. Vern Wyman, 507 West Arizona, said that when they moved there in 1950 there were three houses on Arizona Street. In about 1970, they started developing the rest of Arizona Street. From the '70's to now, there are about 30 houses in the Underhill Addition and Arizona Street. We figure that is a nice development in 20+ years, and we would like to keep it that way. In the territory that Dick is talking about, right directly behind the Underhill Addition, and part of it is next to Meridian Pointe. Meridian Pointe, in the last year, has built 48 family units and there 16 more to be built. They have permission to put up a total of 64 units. With this J proposal, the maximum that can be put on this area would be 26 additional units. With what is there and what is proposed, it will make 90 units in an area that is smaller than Arizona Street and Underhill put together in a matter of a couple of years. Ninety more families in that little area up there. It is a peculiar little section of town, because of the highway going through and Meridian going almost straight, there are a lot of pie -shaped lots and dead ends. So, the only way out of this new addition would be out Underhill Court, into Arizona Street and out Fifth Avenue WN or the highway. It would put a lot more traffic on that road. What we would propose is that it stay zoned R-3. At the last meeting I presented a petition with 50 names of residents that were opposed to the zone change request. [The petition is part of the record.] Gerianne Robbins, lives at 637 Underhill Court, which is located near this proposal. What I would like to do is read what the RA-1 Low Density Residential Apartment zone classification allows. She read through the list of permitted and conditional uses in the RA- 1 zone. Based on the square footage allowances in the RA-1 zone, there could be 26 units on this approximate 2 acres. Since we had the addition of the Meridian Pointe apartments, we have experienced a decline in the neighborhood. The property values have been diminished. We have had multiple problems. I will cite problems I've had personally, and others in the neighborhood. One neighbor has had an existing fence totally knocked over, and 1 kids riding bikes cutting through her property. Another 4 neighbor has had her mailbox bomb exploded, with the FBI investigating it. She also had an attempted break-in. I recently had a trash fire, and fortunately was alerted to it before the bushes, fence and house were burned. A delinquent was seen running towards those apartments. Kids in the neighborhood have come to our doors terrified and screaming because they have been beaten up or threatened at knifepoint. These kids are coming from Russell School through the apartment complex. We have had big impacts from the Meridian Pointe apartments, and it isn't even fully built out. What we are asking is to have the integrity of the neighborhood maintained. The original integrity of the neighborhood is an R-3 Single Family Residential. It happens to be a fluke that there is a big area of RA-1 adjacent, with the associated problems. We have had testimony from Mr. Mohrenweiser that the water drainage problem is taken care of. With the rains we have had recently, my front yard is flooded again. Underhill and West Arizona is flooded, again. He talked tonight about Underhill Court being paved. When I came down here at 7:00 p.m. I drove on a gravel, unpaved road. It wasn't paved less than an hour ago. It was probably two summers ago there was a major grass fire on the hillside in this area. There was a major problem on how the Fire Department was going to extinguish it. They were stopped at the top of Highway 93, trying to figure out how to get this fire out. They did not have access up Underhill Court. They were hauling hoses, and not much water pressure, and that fire was set by children. We must talk about the incredible traffic problem that we have. West Arizona intersects at a very dangerous intersection. There are several accidents there a week. It is a blind intersection, and a real bottleneck. It is already a very big problem, let alone if it is zoned RA-1, which would allow a maximum of 26 units. You have to consider the amount of traffic that would involve, not only by the residents who live there, but also those who would visit. A big major impact. After last month's meeting, I was curious at the developer's reluctance to take the offer the Board was extending to them to make it an R-4 for the duplexes. I talked With them outside and what they said was that this gentleman has contiguous land adjacent to the area and they want to set the precedent for continuing to get high density development in there, and to get the maximum amount of money out of that piece of property. I was not clear on the testimony which referred to the flag pole lot that is north of the cul-de-sac. My understanding is that it is too narrow for a road. Another impact that we have to consider is the impact on Russell School. With the apartments that are already existing, the A (7) principal has already commented that Russell School is maxed out. I, also, want to mention the petition which was submitted at the last meeting with 50 signatures signed by people who are against this project. Indeed, the managers at the Meridian Pointe complex are also opposed to this, and their names are on the petition. There has certainly been an increase in police calls to the neighborhood, because of crime. There seems to be a strong correlation between the apartments and higher density living that is right at all of our back doors, as compared to what it was prior to that development. In summary, I would like to read the permitted and conditional uses allowed in the R-3 district. [Those uses were read.] Those of us who live in the neighborhood would like to keep it as it exists as an R-3 zone. I would urge the Board -to take into consideration the testimony that the people in protest have made on record, and to be fair about it. There being no further opponents wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed and it was opened to Board discussion. Discussion Hash asked staff about the report under 'overcrowding of land' it states "The application indicates the intent is to subdivide the 0 property into 5 lots for duplexes." Is that the basis on which you wrote your report? Parsons responded that no, he based the recommendation on the master plan and its allowable density under the high density residential. The applicant did submit a rough outline of 5 lots with the intention of constructing duplexes on each of those lots. I put that in the report for informational purposes. You cannot recommend approval or denial of a zone change based on a particular development. Hash agreed and stated that we have to look at the maximum build -out of 26 units, since Mr. Mohrenweiser offered to present a different proposal that was more than ten units. The other question I have is the access through Underhill Court, what is the average daily vehicle trips? Parsons replied that apartments generate an average of 7 daily vehicular trips per day, which would equal a total of 182 additional daily trips on Underhill Court. Carlson wanted to state a clarification that it was his understanding of the discussion of last month, that the Master Plan is not flexible. The Master Plan sets the maximum amount of density that can be established in an area. But, it also has to take into account the neighborhood considerations and topography. It wasn't that the Master Plan was flexible, it is the application of the designation that in all cases, you do not necessarily get the maximum allowable under the Master Plan. A Lopp expanded on the discussion of the other zone change request of last month. The request was for a zone change that was not compatible with the Master Plan, and it was a much more complex use than what was allowed. I do not see any relationship with that discussion relative to this discussion. We are looking at what is the level of density of housing in an area which is designated by the Master Plan. But, -the request is a matter of what density we feel is suitable to that property and to that neighborhood. I think the issue of -traffic might need a little more consideration, because of the exit difficulties from Underhill/Arizona. An additional 182 trips per day is something we need to consider in our action. It is a dangerous spot. I wish there were a better solution to it. I don't know of one without revamping the whole neighborhood. I think that is a legitimate issue. Kennedy disagreed with the findings of fact, because the zone change would not promote the health and general welfare of the particular neighborhood. As clearly stated by the people in the neighborhood, the general welfare of the neighborhood would be intruded upon. It would not promote -their general welfare to have a density of 26 additional families in that area. It should not create an undue hardship on the neighborhood. I believe that it certainly would create an undue hardship with regards to the roads system in the area. The same is true with regards to the next item pertaining to congestion in the streets. It states that with a duplex development, it may require two access points, but I don't see that we actually have the space allowed for two access points and don't see that it will alleviate the true problem that neighborhood will have from a development of that size in that area. I think that as they have clearly indicated there is safety issues that we have to be concerned about with regards to fire, and access to the land. I think that we can look at the map of the zoning in the area and see that R-3 is clearly what is surrounding and was the intent of the area, and has been the intent of the area all along. At this point, there is no way that I could support an RA-1 zone for that 2 acre site. I believe R- 3 is appropriate and would favor rewriting the statutory criteria to bring that forward. Hodgeboom felt that the project has some merit, but I really do have concerns about that access. If I lived in that neighborhood, I couldn't support it either, based on the traffic and disruption of the residents that already live there. There is no other access available. Conner recalled that when we talked about Meridian Pointe, the issue from the school standpoint was also a safety issue. 7 Hash agreed with the discussion. I wish there was something the applicant wished to do with the property other than to proceed with the potentially 'highest and best use, but that doesn't necessarily mean the highest and best for everyone involved. Knowing the problems that -the neighbors in -the Underhill Subdivision have had and the ongoing question of Meridian Pointe, the access issue is certainly a big factor there. We have to review the zone change independent of any development proposal. Whether Mr. Mohrenweiser or someone else develops it, we have to look at the maximum potential of 26 units on the site with the requested zone change. I cannot support it. I think the issue of children's safety to and from schools is a big factor, as well as the sheer impact on the schools. We have to note that a negative impact will be expected, as now they are bussing children everywhere. They do not get into their neighborhood school any longer. I cannot support the RA-1 zone. I am not in favor of forwarding a zone change which -the applicant has not requested. It was the general consensus of the Board that the RA-1 zone request be denied. The Board discussed the procedure for sending a recommendation to City Council stating their desire to deny the RA-1 zone change request. Motion Carlson moved to forward a recommendation to City Council for C_) denial of the zone change request from R-3 to RA-1 and rewrite the findings of fact in FRDO report #KZC-95-3. Lopp seconded. The Board proceeded through the rewrite of the findings of fact in report #KZC-95-03. EVALUATION BASED ON STATUTORY CRITERIA The statutory procedure for evaluating zone changes is set forth by 76-2-303, M.C.A. Findings of Fact for the zone change request are discussed relative to the criteria described by 76-2-304, M.C.A. DOES THE REQUESTED ZONE COMPLY WITH THE MASTER PLAN? The subject property is within the jurisdiction of the Kalispell City -County Master Plan, more specifically the North Meridian Neighborhood Plan, adopted in 1994. According to the Neighborhood Plan, the property is designated for "High Density Residential". This request is considered in greneral conformance with the Master Plan. an-l- meet-ed-. However, the property is better suited as a transition area between the' single family residential and anticipated hich density residential, because of problems associated with the existinff hi-h density residential development that is occurring in the area. C, WILL THE REQUESTED ZONE SECURE SAFETY FROM FIRE, PANIC AND OTHER DANGERS? 8 WILL THE REQUESTED ZONE SECURE SAFETY FROM FIRE, PANIC AND OTHER DANGERS? Development within the RA-1 zone is subject to certain standards including maximum building height and the provision of off-street parking. Further, any development of the property is subject to review by the City's Site Plan Review Committee, and requires the issuance of City building, plumbing, and mechanical permits. Viiesse eeq�rireren- erk-re�tiew--pieeses �ielp--ensue-rsrt-elegy*elopen-e-tke-trt'QP't3F su.�st�.ter���o--tlre--�o�e--et}ange-�s-lone-i�� �-sar€e--ms�n�re} :--I�-t-&dd�t�.�r,-and--speeifie cl elep to t--mere--i rt rse--t ry-a-�kttple -wo-u3--Peq;Hi- - eo3rc�i#ienaP-use--berm s�n�l-/-oi-s-ttb•di-v-i�ie� a-p��o�a-srl: One limitation to developing this property would be the topographic constraints. T'lris itri srtierr- s-r�s-ec��si eyed-severe-eep-meM. The cross slope of the property is approximately 18%. Another limitation is the access, only a single point of access is available to service the property. This is Underhill Court where it extends to the north. This area (Underhill) is in essence one cul-de-sac. Because of the designated access, this zone change would not secure safety from fire, panic and other dancers. WILL THE REQUESTED CHANGE PROMOTE THE HEALTH AND GENERAL WELFARE? The general purpose of the City's zoning ordinance is to promote the general health and welfare and does so by implementing -the City Master Plan. T4w-_-G-ify's-i-a-st-er P}srn-Bees-suppo lze--req egtett- erne -elite e. The density of this zone would niat intrude on the health or general welfare of this particular neighborhood. The surrounding uses are eon-Adered not compatible with the proposed zoning classification. WILL THE REQUESTED ZONE CHANGE PREVENT THE OVERCROWDING OF LAND? Lopp pointed out that one of the issues was that adequate infrastructure was not there. The access out of Underhill is a significant limiting factor. The Board made the following finding: Overcrowding of land can occur when development out -paces or exceeds the environmental or service limitations of the property. Adequate infrastructure is not in place in the area to accommodate the land uses allowed in the requested zone. Access is through a single family neighborhood. A parcel of 1.8 acres could potentially be developed with 26 units. Keever-Heea�se-ef-tepegratrhie-�i3nrtait�rrs anrtl-aeees-s;-cke�elop-me�rt �rt�3.-rf--be--e�pec�-e�-��-he-s�ri3s�-a3rt-is}l�-tens.--T1re--a-pi}liea�i� iic�artes-�liat-t-l�e i-rrt-eat is t-o-di-v-idt--tom--p��ol�ert��.art-a--5-k�t-s�er-d�l.�xes�- �l�is is--mere-reaH.stie--a�rd-�v au3�-�te��.-0--u-r-rrt� WILL THE REQUESTED ZONE AVOID UNDUE CONCENTRATION OF PEOPLE? Concentration of people is a function of land use. Development will certainly occur on this site if the zone change is approved. The uses and density associated with the RA-1 zoning designation anticipate a certain concentration of people and would sh-etAd trot create a undue hardship on the neighborhood with the addition of 26 units on 1.8 acres. 9 IS THE REQUESTED ZONE DESIGNED TO LESSEN CONGESTION IN THE STREET AND FACILITATE THE ADEQUATE PROVISION OF TRANSPORTATION, WATER, SEWER, SCHOOLS, PARKS AND OTHER PUBLIC REQUIREMENTS? A-s- -t-ke-R*--z-m 4-s-4es4gi7e+4-o-43e--taRze+ fct t-his-7av. Based on the potential 26 unit development, this would result in over 182 vehicular trips per day on what is essentially a very lonfr cul-de-sac. The Underhill Court north access was expected to serve as a street to this property and also was expected -to serve as access north of the subject property. The new Neighborhood Plan for this area amended this concept to limit access only to the immediate north, the subject property. The development constraints of the RA-1 zone are designed to lesson congestion in the streets for any development by requiring a conditional use permit for development over a duplex, which may require two access points. There is no potential for two access points, and the Master Plan specifically indicated that there would be no throutch access. When the Neighborhood Plan was adopted, access from this street out to Meridian Road was specifically excluded. Additional demands for transportation, water, and sewer collection as a result of development of the property would be evaluated pursuant to individual development proposals. Adequate services exist in the area. The residential nature of this zone would impact schools and parks. N-o A significant impact is expected. DOES THE REQUESTED ZONING GIVE REASONABLE CONSIDERATION TO THE CHARACTER OF THIS DISTRICT? C1 Discussion followed on the adoption of a conditional use permit for / Meridian Pointe. At that time, one of the main issues was that the access was off Meridian. Lopp stated that this proposal directly impacts this neighborhood because of the traffic. We need to make the connection that this area is a continuation of the R-3 neighborhood and not an extension of the RA-1 which is Meridian Pointe. Hash proposed striking the entire finding and to replace as follows: The requested zoning, while potentially would provide for affordable housing in Kalispell, is not necessarily compatible with the property immediately to the south, and -the density proposed offers no buffering from single family residential to anything north of the Underhill Addition. WOULD THE PROPOSED ZONING CONSERVE THE VALUE OF THE BUILDINGS? The property is currently vacant and would be developed into residential uses. A change to the RA-1 zone would sh-et4d-titA significantly impact, erode, or devalue the neighborhood beyond the type of uses that are currently allowed or that exist to the south, those being single family residential. 1-#iris-pro-wee-tcj-lae-devtped as-apar#m rrt�--ar-eonditia -the si glt ily- ft&nt t-o-44i-c--soi±0t: 10 r� Motion The motion by Carlson, second by Lopp was restated to recommend that -the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt these findings of fact and forward a recommendation to City Council for denial of the requested zone change. On a roll call vote Hodgeboom, Sanders, Kennedy, Carlson, Lopp, Conner and Hash voted aye. The motion carried unanimously in favor of recommending denial of the zone change request. OLD BUSINESS The issue brought up regarding fencing behind the Meridian Pointe apartment complex was discussed in light of the considerable public testimony pertaining to -the increase in trespass and crime associated with the high density development. Brian Wood, Zoning Administrator for the City of Kalispell responded that either fencing or landscape screening was required under the conditions of the permit, and he will check on the specific terms of the conditional use permit. Drainage in the area is another issue of concern. NEW BUSINESS There are four items on the September agenda, and the deadline for applications has not closed. It was noted that Robert Lopp and Fred Hodgeboom will not be in attendance for the September meeting. Kennedy announced that there was an opening on the City of Kalispell Solid Waste Board. Lauren Granmo resigned from the Board to serve as Acting Director for the Solid Waste District. A city representative is needed on the Board and interested persons should submia letter of interest to Mayor Rauthe. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:25 P.M. Following the meeting a workshop/introduction of -the revised Kalispell Subdivision Regulations was held. Itu.'V_ (;V &)""- Therese Fox Hash, President 7 APPROVED: / 11 :!retary