04-14-87 Planning BoardKALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING
APRIL 14, 1987
CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by President Chuck Manning at 7:30
AND ROLL CALL p.m. Those present were Manning, Trippet, Hash, Reynolds, Sloan and
Stephens. John Gunnerson had an excused absence and Hall and Treweek
were also absent. David Greer, Senior Planner, and Steve Herbaly,
Planning Director, represented the Flathead Regional Development
Office.
APPROVAL OF MIN- Trippet moved to accept the minutes for the meeting held on March 10,
UTES MARCH 10, 1987 as submitted. Stephens seconded and the motion passed
1987 unanimously of the quorum present.
KINGS COURT Manning introduced the consideration for a request by Ray Dyer for
PRELIMINARY PLAT preliminary plat approval of Kings Court, a 5-lot residential
subdivision. Generally, the proposed subdivision is located on
approximately 3.25 acres of land in an area south of Kings Loop
Subdivision in Evergreen. The area of the subdivision is more
particularly described as being Tract 1 of Certificate of Survey 8790
in the NE 1/4 SE 1/4 of Section 32, Township 29 North, Range 21 West,
P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana.
Greer gave the staff report stating that the subject property is
vacant, unimproved property at this time. The property is not
included in any zoning district and the proposed use is consistent
with the Kalispell City -County Master Plan. Each of the public
interest criteria was briefly discussed. One expressed concern was
with the close proximity to the log storage area of PlumCreek which
may pose a potential safety threat. He did not feel that there would
be negative impacts to the surface water.. There is some concern for
groundwater contamination since groundwater is generally shallow in
this area and percolation is rapid due to the gravelly nature of the
soils. He stated that the cash -in -lieu of parkland fee would amount
to $1,477. The major concern is with the roads in the area. The
proposed subdivision adjoins Kings Way, which is a paved county road
and the subdivider is proposing shared driveway access from this
road. But on the northern boundary of the subdivision there is a 30
foot wide access and utility easement which provides access to three
tracts of property to the west of the proposed subdivision. This
access and easement lacks substantial improvements and fails to
provide suitable access to those lots. The proposed covenants fail to
address the ownership or maintenance responsibilities for this road.
Adjacent to this access and utility easement to the north is a
private road of the Kings Loop Subdivision and serves general access
to five tracts of land. The Kings Loop Subdivision does not need that
road. The county will not do the maintenance on this road since it is
private and it is not up to County Road Standards and lacks a turn
around for snow plowing purposes. The road was deeded to the
Homeowners' Association of Kings Loop and there appears to be no
incorporated homeowners association. One of the adjacent landowners
has expressed concern relative to the use of the private road and
1
access easement and who would be responsible for the care and
maintenance of these roads. Greer stated that the staff
recommendation was for approval of the preliminary plat with ten
conditions. The conditions suggest two alternatives for dealing with
the road situation. They are:
1. Access between Kings Way and the westerly boundary of the
subdivision must be provided by a 60-food wide right-of-way
easement to provide suitable access to the adjoining
properties. This easement must be integrated with the existing
north/south easement that follows the westerly boundary of the
subdivision. A "Statement of Purpose" for the easement must be
included on the face of the plat. Said easement must be located
at least 100 feet south of the northerly boundary of the
subdivision, preferably between Lots 2 and 3. A road with an
improved surface width of at least 24 feet must be built in
accordance to County standards within the 60-foot right-of-way
easement. The approach section to the County road shall be
paved for a minimum distance of 40 feet. The remaining road
segment shall either be graveled or paved.
2. Alternatively, general access to the westerly property and to
the north/south easement could be provided by the existing
private road, which is located adjacent to the northerly
property line. The use of the road as an access shall be
contingent upon the improvement of the road to County standards
for paved roads. The subdivider will need to work out the terms
of improvement and use with the Kings Loop Homeowner's
Association. Both alternatives require elimination of the
northerly 30 foot access and utility easement. An engineer's
certification shall be required to verify that the roadway
improvements have been constructed in accordance to the
applicable standards.
Public Hearing Manning opened the public hearing calling for comments from
proponents of the proposed subdivision.
Paul Stokes, representative of Stahley Engineering, stated that what
is being proposed fits well with what is there. The only problem that
they have with the conditions is that they ask for the opportunity to
try to work out a solution to the road problem. He felt that asking
the developer to pave the private road that is not even on his
property and exists because of the actions of a previous developer
was an imposition. The original developer of the Kings Loop
Subdivision should have been held to his agreement to pave that road
and bring it up to County Road Standards so that the county would
have accepted it.
Ray Dyer was present and also stated that he did not feel that the
road outside of his proposed subdivision should be his to pave. The
developer expressed no problem with the other conditions.
E
There being no further comments from proponents, Manning called on
opponents for comments. There being none, the public hearing was
closed.
Board Discussion Trippet asked who they would talk to in order to try to resolve the
road problem.
Paul Stokes stated that he would talk to the original developer who
is reluctant to pave the road and who has been holding off for years.
He also would try to work out some sort of agreement with the County
concerning that road. When the road was deeded to the Homeowners'
Association of Kings Loop there was no incorporated association. He
didn't know what the legalities were of deeding property to an entity
that does not exist. He added that the taxes on that section of road
have been paid by the Kings Loop developer but when he was questioned
about it the developer had no knowledge of it. This situation is not
one that was created by Ray Dyer or the subdivision that he proposes.
Sloan asked what was meant by "work it out?"
Paul Stokes stated that the property owner should be required to
bring that road up to county standards. The road was accepted by the
County in the original Kings Loop Subdivision plat but the developer
never brought the road up to County Road Standards and, therefore,
the County would not maintain it.
Rich Morris stated that some research on this problem was done by
Lane Bennett. Some of that research shows that the road was accepted
C/ by the County and the subdivider failed to bring the road to the
standards that were required. The County failed to maintain the road
and later deeded it to the Homeowner's Association. According to the
road department, they would maintain that road if it had an adequate
cul-de-sac and were brought up to county standards. There is no
problem with the neighbors on allowing the use of the road for access
to the property behind the proposed subdivision.
Trippet asked what would be acceptable to Ray Dyer? Ray Dyer stated
that he would gravel and grade that road and bring it up to county
road standards but not pave it.
Motion Trippet moved to recommend approval of the preliminary plat accepting
conditions 1-4 as presented by the FRDO staff and conditions 6-10 as
presented by the staff and change condition 5 to "Commissioners and
subdivider work out details on ownership of the road to the north of
the subdivision and abandon the 30 foot easement with provision for
maintenance of the 60 foot right-of-way road including the provision
of a cul-de-sac be taken care of before final approval of the
preliminary plat." The conditions one through ten are:
1. That the water supply and sewage disposal systems be approved
by the Montana State Department of Health and Environmental
Sciences and by the Flathead City -County Health Department as
appropriate.
3
2. That approach permits from the County Road Department be
obtained for each of the driveways shown on the plat.
3. That a fee -in -lieu of parkland be accepted in the amount of
$1,477.
4. That Clause IV, Paragraph 2 of the proposed covenants be
amended to provide Commissioner approval of any amendments to
the "Declaration."
5. Commissioners and subdivider work out details on ownership of
the road to the north of the subdivision and abandon the 30
foot easement with provision for maintenance of the 60 foot
right-of-way road including provision of a cul-de-sac be taken
care of before final approval of the preliminary plat.
6. That all disturbed areas, including the roadside ditches, be
re -vegetated in accordance to a plan approved by the Flathead
County Noxious Weed Control Board.
7. That mail boxes be placed in locations acceptable to the U.S.
Postal Service.
8. That the covenants specifically address the purpose, ownership,
and maintenance responsibilities of the access and utility
easement.
9. That the roadway access (see condition #5) also provide
Cdriveway access to the adjacent lots of the subdivision to
eliminate the need for a driveway approach onto the County
road.
10. That all improvements be completed or guaranteed in accordance
with Chapter 9 of the Flathead County Subdivision Regulations
prior to the approval of the final plat.
Hash stated that she would be in favor of the problems being worked
out with the Commissioners before the preliminary plat is approved so
that the resolution of the problem can be incorporated as a condition
of approval. Sloan voiced reluctance in accepting the motion if it
were not more specific..
Stephens seconded the motion.
Manning suggested that maybe the Board should give the County
alternatives.
Paul Stokes said that they would work on who really owns that road
and then work with them to bring the road up to County standards. He
also felt that Trippet's motion was acceptable.
Question The motion passed unanimously of the quorum present.
L!
�i
COUNTY -INITIATED Manning introduced the next agenda item dealing with county -initiated
ZONING zoning outside the City Limits of Kalispell and selection of the next
priority area.
Greer stated that the Willow Glen neighborhood proposal has been sent
on to the County Commissioners and the County Attorney is writing the
legal description for public hearing. He added that Jonathan Smith
feels there needs to be a meets and bounds description for each of
the zoning classifications inside of the area being considered. A
surveyor has been hired to write the meets and bounds for the Willow
Glen neighborhood area. It will be another month before the public
hearing is held on this. He suggested that the Planning Board could
begin tackling another area in the same manner as was done with the
Willow Glen area and he suggested that rather than just consider one
quadrant on the west side of the City Limits the Board should
consider all of the areas west of Highway 93 that are within the
boundaries as stated by the County Commissioners and are currently
outside the City Limits.
Motion After some board discussion, Trippet moved to recommend that the
Board consider all areas outside the City Limits and west of Highway
93 and bounded by an area one mile north of West Reserve Drive on the
north, by Springcreek Road on the west, Cemetery Road on the south
and including the Foys Lake area. Hash seconded and the motion passed
unanimously.
REDUCTION OF Manning asked Greer for his next installment on the continued
ZONES consideration of stategies and procedures for reducing the number of
zoning classifications appurtenant to the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance.
Greer passed out a copy of what the zone classifications would look
like after combined, eliminated, or merged. He stated that he did not
try to change any of the uses and that this should only be a
simplification of the zoning regulations.
Steve Herbaly suggested that this could be handled as a text
amendment to the zoning ordinance.
Greer stated that next month he would give them copies of the new
definitions for each of the zoning classifications and how to deal
with the redevelopment area. There will be no redevelopment zoning
classifications left when this is completed. He added that the
Kalispell Community Development Office and the Zoning Administrator
have been studying the progress of this and so far they have no
problems with what is being proposed. He asked the Board members to
read the information and come back to the next meeting prepared to go
on into the definition of the zoning classifications.
OLD BUSINESS Greer stated that the Ad Hoc Sign Committee met on April 1, 1987 and
decided that they would like some input on the opinions of some of
the community organizations on the need for sign regulations in the
city. Information is being prepared for those organizations and as
soon as response is back from them then the committee will hold
another meeting. He prepareda sample questionaire to be sent to the
various organizations and passed it out to the Board members. He
stated that it could take 6 weeks for results to be known from the
questionaire.
Steve Herbaly stated that the Northwest Human Resources Office was
putting the finishing touches on the videos of the Planning Workshop
held in March. He added that these videos will be viewed on FRED in
the month of May on either Monday and Wednesday or Tuesday and
Thursday.
Manning stated that one of the City Council members, Louis Ruiz, was
impressed by the quality of the speakers for the workshop and the
quality of information presented.
NEW BUSINESS Herbaly stated that the work program for the 1987-1988 year needed to
be discussed. He stated that the current progress on the extra-
territorial zoning is expected to continue on into the next year and
would probably consume a large portion of that time. Greer also
stated that the reduction of zones project will probably be mostly
completed by the time the next year begins and, therefore, does not
need to be considered a work program item for the next year. Greer
also stated that the sign committee may or may not be proceeding with
sign regulations. If they do proceed with a sign regulation proposal,
that will go into the next year. Herbaly suggested that anther issue
that could be considered would be critical resource areas or areas of
critical concern within the planning jurisdiction. Herbaly asked the
Board if they had any other items they would want on the work
CJ program.
Manning stated that he would like to see the Board take a look at a
good traffic study for the entire planning jurisdictional area.
After further discussion, the Board reached a general concensus that
the work program for the next year should include the following
projects:
1. Continued consideration of county -initiated zoning outside the
City Limits of Kalispell.
2. Sign Regulations for the City of Kalispell.
S. Traffic study of the entire planning jurisdictional area.
4. Consideration of a study of critical resource areas within the
planning jurisdiction.
5. Conclusion of the reduction of the zoning classifications in
the Kalispell City Zoning Ordinance.
Herbaly suggested, a proposal that an economic data base for economic
development in the county be created for having up-to-the-minute
information on unemployment, housing, industrial activity, commercial
activity in the entire County and other areas of concern to economic
development. Currently, the information that is used is months old
6
and consequently could be out of date. He felt that, since the
Flathead Regional Development Office uses this information and
sometimes gathers it, it would be good to have this data base
information in the office. He asked for board comments on this
concept.
Manning stated that he felt that this was important and would support
the staff in pursuing it.
Manning suggested that there be a planning workshop again next year.
He suggested that the workshop may not have to be of the same scope
as this last one but at least a training session for new board
members and refresher or the others. The Board agreed that they would
like to see there be another workshop next year.
Motion Sloan moved that the Board would go on record as supporting the staff
efforts to create this economic assessment data base for the entire
County as well as recommended the five mentioned items for the work
program plus having a planning workshop in the coming year. Trippet
seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
Herbaly informed the Board of two educational workshops being held by
the Flathead Basin Commission for planning board members, staff and
elected officials. The first workshop is scheduled for April 28, 1987
at 7:00 a.m. for a no -host breakfast at Cavannaughs and a more
technical workshop that afternoon at 1:00 p.m in Courthouse East
Conference Room #1. The speaker will be Ken Lustig from the Panhandle
Health District in Coeur D'Alene, Idaho. The second workshop is May
11, 1987 with a no -host breakfast in Bigfork and an afternoon
workshop in Polson. The speaker will be Bill Morgan, Planning
Director of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. He invited the
planning board members to participate.
Sloan stated that she felt she could attend one of the meetings,
probably the one in Kalispell.
ADJOURNMENT moved to adjourn and Trippet seconded. The meeting was
�. ,4,loan
journed at 9:15 p.m.
-1 �V4
President, Charle Manning _U Recording Secretary, Ava Walters
Approved:
7