Loading...
09-11-84 Planning BoardKALISPELL CITY -COUNTY PLANNING BOARD Members Present Kathleen Jukich, President Bob LeDuc Virginia Sloan Ed Trippet Charles Manning David C. Reynolds Members Absent Jack Peters L. M. Ormiston SEPTEMBER 11, 1984 Others Present Margaret Clark, Planner II Nakul Verma, Planning Director Tom Jentz, Senior Planner Garmen Meadows Jim Burton Tim Ford CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by President, AND ROLL CALL Kathleen Jukich, at 7:37 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Kalispell City Hall. Roll call was taken. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES REQUEST BY ROBERT L. MONK FOR ANNEXATION OF 8.678 ACRES KNOWN AS "MONK ADDITION" TO THE CITY OF KALISPELL n Manning moved that the minutes of the August 14, 1984 meeting be approved as submitted. James Stephens seconded the motion. The motion carried. Margaret Clark gave the F.R.D.O. staff report on the petition for annexation of 8.678 acres of land located between the City of Kalispell Airport and U. S. Highway 93 South by Robert L. Monk. The acreage is described as Tracts 2 and 7AA in Section 20, T28N, R21W, P.M.M., Flathead County. She stated that a consent to annexation from the owners had been received by the F.R.D.O. office. She further stated that although the area is unzoned, Mr. Monk is asking for a B-3 (General Business) Zone. This would be in compliance with the Comprehen- sive Plan. Clark expanded upon the comments received by the Kalispell Fire Department as shown in Exhibit "D". She also stated that the access permit from the Highway Department was re- ceived in the F.R.D.O. office. Ed Trippet asked what the width of the ease- ment was? Clark replied that it was for 60 feet. She further stated that it was exclusive of the State right-of-way. DISCUSSION BY THE Jukich asked if it was necessary to have BOARD MEMBERS the words "before construction begins" included in Recommendation #2 of the Staff Re- port? After some discussion, the consensus was that it wasn't necessary because the water mains were in the process of being installed now. Jim Burton, from Flathead Land Consultants and representing Mr. Monk, stated that in 1979 Mr. Monk had brought this request before the City Council for annexation and it was accepted. The papers were never processed to be recorded and they are now trying to fulfill that pro- cess again. Manning stated that the City is able.to cooper- ate better with this request now than in the past because the City is able to extend services to that area which probably was not possible previously. Motion Trippet moved that the Planning Board recom- mend approval of this request according to the recommendation of the F.R.D.O. staff subject to its 4 conditions. The motion was seconded by LeDuc. The motion passed with one absten- tion from Stephens for personal reasons. REQUEST BY BAUSKA, Clark gave the F.R.D.O. staff report concern- MCKNIGHT AND MEADOWS ing the request by Bauska, McKnight and FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT Meadows for preliminary plat approval of Haw - APPROVAL OF HAWTHORN thorn West, a 60 unit townhouse and apartment WEST development on 5.3 acres of land, located west of Hawthorn Avenue between Liberty and Yellow- stone Streets. The property is described as Lot 6, Porta Villa Subdivision Number 3, in NE4, Section 12, T28N, R22W, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana. Public Hearing Trippet asked if there were to be 60 town- houses because he did not see 60 on the plat? Clark explained that on parcel 1 the deve- . lopers are proposing to put 18 units, parcel 2 - six units and that the reason those two areas are not shown is because the developer's -2- have not decided whether they want to put apartments or townhouses. They have just plat- ted the other units, but the developer's want the whole 60 units to be considered at this time. Verma, Planning Director, gave a brief background on the Hawthorn West development. He explained that the developer's are limited to a total of 60 units whether they be town- houses or apartments: By considering the total number of units now, the developer is limited to the stated number of units and he cannot build more units than he has approval for and that he will not exceed the number of units previously approved when the subdivision was annexed into the City. The reason for resubmitting this subdivision is that the deve- loper's want to change the plat design. Clark explained that this subdivision will be done in phases and the developer's want to phase the improvements and road construction also. The F.R.D.O. staff is suggesting that at the time of the construction of units V through VII there should be a cul-de-sac at the south end of that section. When further construction is started, then the road should be looped. Jukich asked for comments from proponents of the subdivision. Garmen Meadows, owner of Hawthorn West, gave a background on the number of units and the sub- division. He stated that, when the City annexed the property, it was approved for 100 units with the stipulation that a row of four- plex lots be put on the southside of the deve- lopment as a buffer between the larger build- ings and the single family area. He stated that they have a problem with three of the con- ditions. for approval which are items 3, 4, and 7. Item 3 - Completing the street before con- structing the units puts a hardship on the developer because there is a proposed sale of that section and it would require more front money for that sale if the road is completed first. Also, the consideration of what will happen to this completed road during the con- struction of the units. What they would like -3- C to propose is that. possibly the street be started and some base laid in to help hold down on the dust during construction, but not completed until the units are finished. What they would probably do is start with base and then as they build on down the cushion would be added and upon completion the asphalt cover would be applied. The developer's deal specifies that the road will be built ahead of the construction, but still leave an access without going over the new pavement. Item #7 - As far as bonding the job, that is an extra expense and they would like to avoid any extra expense. After discussion, it was ascertained that the cost of bonding would be 1% of the cost of improvements. Item #4 - Meadows said that he could agree with the thinking of restricting parcel 2 from entering on to Hawthorn Avenue, but restric- ting the traffic from 18 units in parcel 1 to only Hawthorn West would be more of a detri- ment than it would be to have its own access from its own parking area. Trippet asked if deletion of condition number 4 would take care of that? Meadows stated that it would. LeDuc. asked where the water lines currently run? Meadows explained that they run along Hawthorn Avenue and Yellowstone Street and that the rest is proposed. Trippet pointed out that with the proposed lines along the proposed roadway that would be another good reason not to completely finish the road prior to completion of the units and installation of sewer and water. Discussion by the Jukich closed the public hearing when there Board Members were no further comments from the public and asked for comments from the Board. Sloan asked if the City had a storm drainage plan for providing these services? - 4- Clark explained that the City does in parts of the City, but not for the entire City and for this new area she wasn't sure if there was one. Manning.stated that it was under study now. Sloan stated that condition number 1 bothered her because she felt it was so vague. Verma explained the process of approval and that all improvements had to be approved before the final plat was approved. He fur- ther stated, that under State Law, once the preliminary plat is approved there cannot be any further conditions imposed on the subdivi- sion and that is why the staff is including that as a condition at this time. Sloan asked for the reasoning behind the set up of the traffic portion of the report con- cerning access to parcel #1? Clark explained that Hawthorn Avenue is a major thoroughfare and the staff wanted to keep it free for main accesses and not have local driveways coming out onto a heavily tra- veled road. Stephens asked if there would be a problem if there was one access to Hawthorn Avenue? Clark explained that there are no problems; but that in the Staff's opinion it would be a better access to route the traffic from parcel #1 on to Hawthorn Drive West and then on to Hawthorn Avenue. Trippet pointed out that only one access will limit the ability of service vehicles to come and go unhindered. Meadows explained that the developer's feel to have.access from parcel #1 directly on to Hawthorn Avenue would cause less traffic con- gestion than only one access off of parcel #1 on to Hawthorn Drive West. Rather, they would like to have an alleyway or utilities service road access from Hawthorn Drive West and an owners/renters parking lot and access on to Hawthorn Avenue. Trippet asked if the Planning staff was set in concrete with that condition? -5- Verma stated that there were two reasons why the Staff included that condition. First, the staff did not want to see someone make a wrong turn thinking it was a public street. Secondly, the Staff was concerned about park- ing problems causing the overflow parking to end up parking on Hawthorn Avenue. Verma sta- ted that there could be one access from the larger lot. Stephens stated that he felt there should be one access from the larger lot on to Hawthorn Avenue. He further stated that as far as pav- ing the road, putting in the grade and sub- base prior to construction and then completing the road after the construction of units is finished makes a lot of sense. Paving should not take place until the project is done. Motion Trippet moved for the recommendation of approval of this request accepting the cond- itions recommended by the F.R.D.O. staff delet- ing number 3, changing number.4 to read "Access to parcel 2 be restricted to Hawthorn Drive West and access to parcel #1 be one access from Hawthorn Avenue in addition to the suggested access from Hawthorn Drive West, and /) retain condition number 7. Jukich suggested that in condition number 3 the period be put after maintained and the rest of the condition be deleted. U Stephens stated that number 3 could not be com- pletely stricken. Clark suggested that number 3 read "Hawthorn Drive West be improved to City Standards and be privately maintained. Before units V through VII are constructed, the remainder of the road base be put in place. Trippet changed his motion to read; "Recommendation for approval of the prelimi- nary plat of Hawthorn West subject to the fol- lowing conditions:" 1. All requirements of the City of Kali- spell and the Departments of Health and Environmental Sciences regarding water, sewer, fire flow, drainage and other a Me improvements be met and be approved by i� the respective City departments. 2. All common utility lines be placed in utility easements and meet the require- ments of Section 3.12 of the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations. 3. Hawthorn Drive West be improved to City Standards and be privately main- tained. At the time of construction of further units, the road be constructed with a road base. 4. Access to parcel 2 to be restricted to Hawthorn Drive West and access to parcel 1 be limited to one access from Hawthorn Avenue. 5. A home owners association be formed and the covenants and by-laws be filed with the County Clerk and Recorder. Any amendments to the Covenants be approved by the City Council. 6. All common property including water and sewer systems and landscaped areas be maintained by the Homeowners Associa- tion. 7. All required improvements be completed prior to approval of the final plat or the developer shall enter into a written subdivision improvements agreement with the City guaranteeing the construction and installation of all .improvements. 8. All delinquent taxes be paid before approval of the final plat. 9. Any future development plans for parcels .1 and 2 meet all bulk and dimensional requirements of the RA-1 zoning dis- trict. Motion was seconded by Stephens. Motion passed by a unanimous voice vote. RECESS The board moved to recess before having the report on the Kalispell Master Plan update and allow the Kalispell City Zoning Commission to complete their business before reconvening. j/ The board recessed at 8:41 p.m. -7- RECONVENE The board reconvened at 9:03 p.m. OLD BUSINESS Tom Jentz presented the progress of the plan- KALISPELL MASTER PLAN ning staff and the planning board on the Kali- spell Master Plan. He hoped for a draft by September 14, 1984. Jentz stated that.the planning board has to hold a public hearing at least once. For any amendments the board pas- ses a resolution and goes on to the City and the County Commissioners. They both have to approve the revised Kalispell Area Master Plan. They do not have do it with public hear- ings. His question was did the board want this submitted to the public before holding a planning board hearing. Jukich asked if the Board of Commis- sioners let the City zone out in the areas covered by the Master Plan what procedure would be followed? Would they be zoning accor- ding to the existing comprehensive plan? Jentz stated that whatever comprehensive plan you have in effect at the time, zoning ordinances should theoretically comply to a great extent to that plan. The Master Plan should be used as a guide to zoning. Jukich asked which plan the county or the city's would apply? Jentz stated that if the City has elected to enforce zoning regulations it will be a city originated ordinance. It could be the county ordinance that was used or it could be Kali- spell ordinance that may be extended out or it could be a hybrid. Manning asked how the ag-element is addressed? Jentz stated that he was working with the Rural Resource Development Council under Mike Casey in order to address the ag-element. Therefore, this subject will be addressed in this update of the Master Plan. The plan should include the areas that should be pre- served for agriculture and areas that are fra- gile as agriculture land. LeDuc expressed opposition to zoning beyond the city limits because it gives too much control over those.properties which do U O not pay city taxes or in many cases do not utilize city services. Jentz stated that he did not want them to con- fuse the Master Plan with zoning. He further stated that there is a plan in effect for that area now and this is a modification of that Plan. There should be a Plan in effect before any zoning takes place so that the zones could reflect good planning. Jentz asked the board what they wanted to do in regards to informational meetings and a pub- lic hearing? Verma stated that this project was part of . last year's work program and he wanted to see the Plan completed and adopted so that the Board could move on to other necessary pro- jects. He further stated that 2 informational meetings and a public hearing were held when Columbia Falls adopted their Master Plan up- date and that seemed to be sufficient. He further stated that if residents of a given area wished to be zoned they make the request to the County Commissioners and the Commission- ers can only zone on the basis of the Compre- hensive Plan. Trippet.expressed the opinion that he felt all owners of record in the Kalispell Jurisdiction Area should receive a legal letter telling them what is going on.. Verma stated that to do that would be a monu- mental task and that it is not required by the law to do it. He further clarified that.this Master Plan accommodates all land uses that have already happened; therefore, a land use designation is not being put on most proper- ties that are being used in other ways. Reynolds suggested that, because of the large task it is to notify each person, the planning staff should put into the newspaper some news releases and appear on television, and put up some public notices around town, hold a public meeting and see what kind of response there is. Verma suggested that he would be willing to open a room at the planning office for the pur- pose of an open house for people to come and see the Plan and learn what it is all about. M Motion After further discussion, Sloan moved that the Planning Office proceed with public.informa- tional meetings in regard to the update of the changes to the Kalispell Master Plan. Rey- nolds seconded it and the motion passed unani- mously. NEW BUSINESS None ADJOURNMENT Manning moved that the meeting be adjourned and Trippet seconded it. The meeting was ad- journed at 10:19 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ava Walters Recording Secretary Approved: /� / J( /P4 Chairman:. -10-