Loading...
05-14-91 Planning BoardKALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND CONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING MAY 14, 1991 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Therese Hash, President, at 7:033 AND ROLL CALL p.m. Those present were Hash, Manning, Fraser, Stephens, Gould, Lopp, Sloan and Kennedy. David Greer, Senior Planner, represented the Flathead Regional Development Office. APPROVAL OF MIN- Gould moved to approved the minutes from the meeting held on April 9, UTES APRIL 9, 1991. Manning seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 1991 & MARCH 12, 1991 Concerning the minutes from March 12, 19911 Lopp stated that he had some minor changes to make to these minutes. Page ti at the bottom below the motion change the sentence to. read "Robert Lopp asked if the other areas that are still in the county will be annexed at this time." Also change the third sentence in that paragraph to "The Council would have to initiate the annexation of the other properties." Motion Fraser moved to approve the minutes of March 12, 1991 as corrected and Kennedy seconded the motion which passed unanimously. GLACIER VILLAGE Hash opened the meeting to the request for preliminar plat approval ( 1 GREENS PHASES of Glacier Village Greens, Phases III, IV, and V, a subdivision -/ III, IV, AND V consisting of 188 residential lots. The proposed subdivision is PRELIMINARY PLAT generally located north of West Evergreen Drive, between the Whitefish River and Whitefish Stage Road. Greer gave the staff report. stating that the first two phases were granted, approval several years ago. The proposal for 188 units fits the density allowed by the zoning which allows 5400 square foot lot sizes.These phases will abut an 1S hole golf course of which 9 holes are currently being developed. This request for development is still only partial development of the property that exists. Eventually the developers hope to develop at least 500 homes. Phase II of the subdivision has not been platted yet. The property is zoned R-5 (Residential). The .covenants require the residence to be 1100 square feet and chil.dren are excluded. This will be an adult community. Evergreen Water District will provide the water and the North Village Sewer District will provide the sewer service. The topography is relatively flat. The rives- has a floodplain associated with it but it is not involved with this subdivision. All traffic will enter onto West Evergreen Drive. This subdivision of 188 lots will generate 1880 daily vehicle trips at full build out. In addition, there will be traffic associated with the 18-hole golf course. There will be increased use of West Evergreen Drive which is not built to urban street standards and there will be additional congestion on Whitefish Stage Road. There is still some riparian vegetation along the river corridor and it is important that the river corridor integrity be maintained. The homeowner's park: is located along some of .'the river corridor and that will go a long way toward maintaining the integrity 1 of the riparian vegetation along the river bank. The soils are considered prime agricultural soils. The subdivision will have significant impacts on fire and police protection and roads. There should be negligible impacts on school enrollment in the area since this is an adult community. There will be some impacts to the school through the increased traffic generated onto Whitefish Stage Road from this subdivision. This will heighten the concern that currently exists concerning Whitefish Stage Road. The staff feels that the parkland dedication provided for is inadequate since there is no park site on the western side of the subdivision. The fire department has a concern about cul-de-sacs that have a large enough radius to turn the equipment when servicing the area for fire needs. Police service to the subdivision will be severely inadequate. There is no reference made in the application as to whether they will provide curb, gutter or sidewalks. Since this will be developed in phases, the staff wishes to make sure that the looped road system is maintained even between phases which would involve the preparation of a temporary surface so that emergency vehicles can use it. In earlier approvals, there was a pedestrian trail required across the property up the hill to Whitefish Stage Road and that would still be a requirement on the previous approval. The City of Kalispell submitted three letters on this subdivision. When a subdivision is within three miles of the city limits, the state law requires the staff to ask for their comments. They also commented because they are party to an agreem' with North Village Sewer District which says that if anyone hooxs into the sewer system the development shall be consistent with city standards. That would include roads, walkways, drainage/ curb, gutter and sidewalks. The city has expressed that it would be in their best interest to require that the subdivision be built to city standards since at some later point the subdivision will be annexed into the city limits. The extension of West Evergreen Drive to Grandview Drive, which is in the Master Plan, may have to be developed in order to provide alternative trip choices off of Whitefish Stage Road. Since there could be 2500 trips from this subdivision if all proposed phases were developed plus at least 210 trips per day in connection with the golf course, there will be off -site problems generated. The staff recommended conditional approval of the subdivision with 21 conditions. Greer covered each of the conditions. Public Hearing Hash opened the meeting for public hearing and called for comments from proponents. George Schulz stated that he was in favor because he owned it. (Duane Bitney was present but did not speak.) There were no further proponents, therefore, Hash called for comments from opponents. There were no opponents and the public hearing was closed. Board Discussion Manning asked George Schulz if they have recommendations of approval and were there any with? Schulz stated that was in general agreement except he had not planned to do sidewalks. Curbs not part of the conditions in Phases I and II. reviewed the they could not live with the conditions and sidewalks were Currently they are 2 getting ready for the final platting of Phase II and they plan to put in curbs for phase II and will go back: and curb phase I. Manning asked George Schuh if sidewalks were part of the original subdivision? George Schulz said they were not and that curbs were also not part of the subdivision conditions of the two phases already approved. Regardless, they plan to put curbs in the previous two' phases even though they were not a condition of approval. He added that he has a problem with requiring sidewalks at this time. He felt that as the need arises and the homeowners want them, the sidewalks could be installed at a later time. There are 650 foot right-of-ways on all the roads so there would be space to put in the sidewalks later . Hash asked George Schulz if they currently had an agreement with North Village Sewer District? George Schulz stated that he did. She then questioned him about the statement regarding curbs, gutters, and sidewalks in the Sewer District Agreement. George Schulz felt that it. must be something new because it was not in Phases I or II. Hash asked how the sidewalks were overlooked previously. Greer stated that previously the conditions stated that the subdivision would be in compliance -with the Sewer District Agreement and that,, the previous public works director for f�:alispell only checked the sewer system at that time. Sloan asked if the present homes were in only phase I? Schulz said they were and they should have .most of the services ready for Phase II in June. Gould stated that it appears that the Electric utility wanted separate trenches for their electric lines from the other utilities. He asked if that was included in the conditions and was it a problem? Greer stated that most utilities said they could share the trenches. Montana Power 'wanted their easements to the rear of the lots and everyone else said they could put theirs in the road or in the front of the lots. Greer felt that there was adequate room for the underground utilities with easements in the rear and the front and then in the road. Gould felt that the comments from the city were very thorough and sensible recommendations. He asked if the sidewalks and boulevards have been typically required in the past (i.e. LHC project, Riverview Greens)? He further asked if this is the kind of thing that must be mandated now or can it be added later? Greer stated that Riverview Greens has curbs and one sidewalk: which was part of their proposal. Concerning LHC, Greer stated that they were required to have 30 foot roads under their Conditional Use Permit and during subdivision review they would be required to provide sidewalks and the drainage improvements. Greer added that anytime a .density of this level is proposed the curbs, gutters and improved drainage systems will be required. The sidewalks are appropriate given the density. Not a lot of discussion has taken place regarding landscaping the boulevards. ,..� This is something that the city is very interested in doing. Gould asked what the policy was regarding the landscaping of the 3 •a boulevards? Greer directed him to condition #20 requiring a landscaping plan to be prepared for the boulevards. Gould asked if this was the first time this has been this has been requirement? Greer acknowledged that it was. Lopp asked if the sidewalk could be placed adjacent to the curb rather than inset creating a need for a landscaped boulevard? Greer stated that the city would like to have the boulevards for landscaping purposes. That is their standard for site plan review. Sloan stated that considering the density and the fact that this is a retirement age development the sidewalks are very appropriate, Gould suggested that since this development surrounds the golf course there may be other ways to provide the walkways. Sloan said that walking on the golf course is a problem for golf courses. Lopp asked if there is a current study of what the traffic is on West Evergreen Drive? Greer said that he did not check on the latest figures. Lopp asked what additional width would be required for West Evergreen Drive. Greer stated that for Phase I and Phase II the developers dedicated ten feet of additional right-of-way to bring West Evergreen to a 70 foot width. There probably is a need for an 80 foot right-of-way to do any substantial improvements to the road. He said that a study need to be done to examine the road and determi what needs to be done to address the traffic needs. Lopp expressed concern from the storm drainage run off from the subdivision to the river. Greer stated that the Fish, Wildlife and Parks noted the same concern and so did the city of Kalispell saying that their standards would not allow any direct flow into the River. They said that a detailed drainage analysis would have to be conducted for them to evaluate. Therefore it will be done prior to final plat. Lopp expressed concern about a snow removal plan. Greer stated that they did not have any suggestions for that. Lopp asked what procedures would be in place for guaranteeing road maintenance so that at such a time as this is annexed into the city it will meet the standards of the city. Greer stated that the covenants address road maintenance. This subdivision does have an incorporated homeowners' association. The only thing that can be hoped for is an active association which collects dues for the maintenance of the roads. If the city ever accepts these roads they will have to be in good condition and meet their standards before that is done. Therefore, it would be in their best interest to construct those roads to city standards and hope that the city will accept the roads in the future. Gould asked the developers why they would want to keep the roa private? Schulz stated that no one else would take them therefore they are left to provide for the maintenance of the roads. Schulz said that he did not care if the roads were private or public. Currently the standards are to build them as being proposed. He added 4 that he has a problem with the requirement for sidewalks and boulevards. That adds to the cost of those lots which the consumer is going to pay. Gould was concerned with putting such costly requirements on the subdivision that it never gets developed. Schulz said they are trying to create an affordable subdivision for the average adults. Schulz said that he viewed some adult subdivisions of this type in Arizona and they don't have sidewalks and boulevards. They go down the streets in their golf carts and have jogging trails and bike paths. Sloan expressed her concern for how inadequate Whitefish Stage Road is and further pressure for development in that area needs to be addressed. She felt that the Board should write the Commissioners again since development is in that direction. Schulz pointed out that this is a retirement community and a lot of the people will go south for the winter thus relieving pressure on Whitefish Stage Road during some of the school year. Lopp asked what their schedule for having the golf course operational and the club house in place. Schulz stated that they plan to have the first nine holes ready for next spring. They do not have any projections for the second nine holes yet. Lopp asked about the mention of a potential park: on the west side of Phase III. He asked how they would meet that suggestion? Schulz stated that there is land available which does not show on the map. " There is a green belt all around ithis total development. It would be very feasible to put a beautiful park: in there. Greer stated that he talked to the Surveyor who confirmed there would be room available on the west side but we would like to have it shown on the face of the plat so that it can be officially designated as a homeowner's park:. Gould asked about the 25 foot setback along the streambank: proposed by the Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Greer said that he did not put that in there because they are already proposing to have the homeowner's park: along there. Gould felt that a homeowner's park: with grass mowed to the rivers edge is different .from the 25 foot setback: requested for protection of riparian vegetation. Greer felt they could clarify that in the conditions. Fraser felt that sidewalk:.s against the curb were not of value in the winter when snow is plowed. He also felt that there should be a condition that there should be a 25 foot setback: from the streambank: for riparian vegetation. Fraser suggested adding another condition to cover this. Fraser asked Greer what he anticipates with the traffic study. Greer stated that he anticipates someone to study the direct impacts of this subdivision on the public road system and find out how it affects the nearby intersections. He also felt that this needed to focus on how this would interrelate with the existing traffic in the area. If the study shows that an alternative route is needed out of Whitefish Stage Road area, it would not be the sole responsibility of the developer. However, if it kicks the intersection to a "lower" status he felt that would show that the developer has the primary responsibility for causing congestion at the intersection and should have to do something about it. Lopp felt that there should add "on the west side of the subdivision" to condition #11. Gould suggested that there appeared to be 25 feet setback except on the corner lots. Greer suggested that the 25 foot easement could be addressed by a 25 foot drainage easement and that would prevent any construction etc in that 25 foot area without removing those lots entirely. A 25 foot drainage easement would provide an undisturbed buffer. Greer suggested that the wording would be "That a 25 foot drainage easement be designated to provide an undisturbed buffer along the river." Motion Fraser moved to adopt the findings of the FRDO Staff Report #FPP-91- 12 and recommended approval of the preliminary plat of Glacier Village Greens Subdivision - Phases III, IV, V with the conditions as shown in the staff report and amended by adding "on the west side of the subdivision" to Condition #11 and new condition #22 as phrased by David Greer. Sloan seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. DEVELOPER'S Hash opened the meeting to continued discussion of a proposed DIVERSIFIED PLAN amendment to the Kalispell City -County Master Plan for Developer's AMENDMENT Diversified. Hash explained the procedure as this is not a public hearing. Fraser excused himself from the Board for the following discussion because of a conflict of interest. Hash called for comments from Greer. Greer stated that last month it was made real clear that the landowners would like to do a mixed use commercial PUD because they cannot fit the mixed use residential PUD with the amountof commercial they wish to have. The Board should keep in mind that a document with goals, policies and implementation polices is fine if the board can accept commercial activities in that area, The Board must make that decision first. If it is appropriate to have commercial in the area, then a decision must be made as to what type and how much. This plan amendment would spell out how to implement that decision. Manning asked Doug Johns if there was anything else he would like to address the Board on. Johns did not think that he had. He added that hopefully there will be enough input to prepare this draft into a final format for a public hearing next meeting. Manning stated that in looking at the commercial development portion of the property there is 20 acres set aside. He compared that to the impact of the Kalispell Center Mall which is 26 acres. He stated tha he philosophically cannot support a commercial PUD on that property. He felt that a residential mixed use PUD would be acceptable. He felt 6 that the motel can be achieved through some other property that is 1 now owned by the hospital. Johns stated that the largest commercial section measures just under 14 acres. The B area is 2 1/2 acres. The A area is 2.4 acres. Medical/Professional is set aside for area C. From a development standpoint, they do not call that commercial. The two parcels next to the highway do not lend themselves to residential use. Sloan echoed Manning's sentiments. She was strongly opposed to that much.commercial and has said so all along. She asked how many acres of commercial would be allowed in a residential PUD? Greer stated that it would allow approximately 15 acres including the portion for medical/professional since that is viewed as commercial also. Manning pointed out that the uses allowed within that 15 acres would be different also. Johns stated that property" portions labeled A and 9 have specific named uses. Page.18 of the proposal states that portion A will be specifically for hotel/motel and associated restaurant and portion S will be small business, financial institutions and office space. Portion E is left open but any proposed use would have to obtain a ,conditional use permit from the city to engage in the commercial activity requested. Any development would require a use permit, site plan, parking design, landscaping plans, etc. Headded that the market place has not produced residential buyers of that property but has produced numerous inquiries for commercial locations. There has been one exception which was for a church. Manning stated that, in looking at the integrity of this property and how he would like to see that area grow, he felt that a good residential mixed use would be appropriate. Lopp stated that, when a planned unit development for this property was first being discussed, the Board encouraged that approach under the terminology of a mixed use residential PUD since it would offer you the opportunity to have approximately iS acres as commercial. He expressed disappointment that the developers have not exhibited much of a compromise from the original proposal. He felt that the board went out on a limb considering the attitude of the neighborhood in saying the a mixed use residential PUD would be considered. He agreed with his fellow Board members that he could not move to allow more commercial development as is proposed and would want to see a mixed use residenial PUD. Kennedy stated that she agreed with the statements made by Lopp. Gould stated that he would concur with Manning's comments. He stated that he was less concerned about the acreage involved in the commercial sections but he was concerned about the actual uses. He added that he would like to see much more land set aside for medical/professional uses. He felt that the notion of a neighborhood commercial island that will, serve the neighborhood is appropriate. He felt that area between the hospital and the college represents a professional area that needs to be supported and continued in that direction. He added that he was hoping for more changes from earlier proposals. Johns stated that the medical/professional area is growing at a very slow pace. Johns again reiterated the types of market demands there have been for that property and then further cited the unsuccessful nature of multi —family and single family residential development in that area. There is a question mark regarding demand for residential development. The developers are willing to commit to a controlled commercial development. ` Lopp stated that he agrees with more medical/professional development in that vicinity. There is only one direction for them to go. Timing may be a lot longer than originally thought but there will need to be locations for more medical uses to expand into since the nursing home is locating there and Glacier View Hosopital is already located there. Sloan expressed the hope that the Board has not lead the developers to think that commercial development would be ameanable to the Board. Johns stated that the Board has not deceived us and neither have t'-- developers. Early on Mr. Barryhill stated that the area labeled as is the portion they needed for commercial development. He felt that it is time for the city to commit that property to a respectable development that the community can be proud of. According to the schedule, it is going to take ten years to get that property developed with some open areas still existing then. He did feel that the portions designated for commercial development will meet their time frame but the portions set aside for residential development will not meet their time frame. Manning asked if Johns would be willing to go back to Developer's Diversified and share with them the Board's feelings concerning a mixed use residential PUD and see if they would reconsider. Johns said he would since the developers would like to liquidate this property. They do not want to be the developers but they will if need be. They will also underwrite any development that takes place. What the developers are trying to do is to reach some sort of community agreement and have Community involvement in this development. Stephens stated that he felt that if a large retail development were done on that property that could shift the downtown retail center. He felt that the downtown businesses needed to be protected. Johns indicated that development is really dictated by the marketplace. Johns further stated that he hoped that the city doesn't look up on the development of this property as being a threat in a competiti aspect to the development of the downtown core area. There are are. that definitely need development but he hoped that the city does not Put this development on a back burner until these other projects are completed. 8 Manning felt that the properties are separated enough geographically C! and that the community needs would be divergent enough to not be competitive. Gould expressed a concern that Developer's Diversified does not want to develop the property themselves. Hash reiterated the concensus of the Board to Mr. Johns and asked him to take those wishes to the developers for their consideration. PROPOSED AMEND- Hash introduced the consideration of a proposed amendment to the MENT - TOURIST Kalispell City -County Master Flan that will incorporate additional ECONOMY - MASTER goals and policies relating to the local tourist economy.. Fraser retruned to the Board at this time. FLAN Greer stated that this was tabled at last month's meeting. Some of the discussion centered around incorporating more information on restaurants and make reference to Lawrence Park:, Woodland Park: and get rid of specific references an the fast food establishments. Since that meeting he has been trying to get together with the Chamber of Commerce and to get some additional information from them. He stated that he has coordinated this throughout with the chamber. At this meeting it might be appropriate to give further direction on where the Board would like to proceed with this and possibly not take any action on it tonight. Manning suggested giving an indication of the community and how progressive it is. He also suggested that rather than naming the franchises, approach it from the volume or number of seatings available. Lopp suggested that a concern he has is found on page 2 in reference to the generating interest in the sportsple::. It may be a viable project in the future however the master plan is not necesarily a speculative document. He felt the conclusion might be inappropriate. The concensus of the Board was to leave the consideration tabled until further information is provided. OLD BUSINESS Greer stated that Highway 93 North Zoning District is now in effect. NEW BUSINESS Greer stated that the Board members need to be considering what the work: program will be for the coming year. Two of the unfinished projects are the neighborhood plans for North Meridian and the city airport. He added that he wished to ask: the city staff what they think; should be added to the work program. He asked the Board to consider anything else that might be appropriate and then next month the Board can decide on a formal work program. Kennedy updated the Board on the status of the revised Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. She is confident that a sign ordinance will go l i through. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 Therese Fox Hash, President Approved- Ava Walters, Recording Secretary