Loading...
09-27-77I J9-27�77 The. regul a r meet i ng of the Kai i-spel 1, City -County Planning Board was .held Tuesday, September 27., 1977 at 7:30 p.m. in the Flathead County, Courthouse East, 723 5th. Avenue East, Kalispell, Montana, Community Room. Members Present: others Present Dorothy- Gar vi n l APO Staff Representative Ha rvey ' Knebe l ' 58 Guests Fran ollendike W. � J . Lupton . Ga rmen Meadows Ray Lybeck . Walter A: Griffin 'Jr. - The meeting was' ca II ed to order ' by Ac`i ng Chairman, Walter A. Griffin at 7;45. p,m. Minutes -approved. Minutes of September : 13, 1977 were approved as mailed by a motion from Harvey Knebel ; seconded by Dorothy Garvin: motion carried. Cornmun i cations. A letter" was read by' J i m Mohn from the Smith Valley -Fire Dept. concerning "fire department faci l-i ti es in conjunction with rural community water ' systems . Copy attached. Jim Mohn also''- read a letter f rom the Board . of County Commissioners with reference -to the final plat of Lake Shore Hills No. I w i-th the "APO Staff recommendations and comments. Pub i G Hearings : Walt Griffin announced - that ' St i ] ]water Terrace Unit No. 3 would Stillwater terrace -* #3 not be heard because theproposal had been withdrawn from the Withdrawn. review. procedure' as of that after; Kings Loop Subdivision. Jim Mohn presented, the Staff comments with .relation to the proposed d eve-1 opme n t with Staff recommendations . Bill Doyle, project surveyor, 'briefly outlined the' developers intent of the project and Mr-. Orrin -Strei ch, owner -Developer, made a few. comments . Stan Han t �fo rd , adjacent landowner, indicated potential sewer problems -in the area because the development site . i s basically a gravel ' pi le and indicated that.. he' has a well at 207' in depth and that the well driller had i ndi cated'to him that the well could be p improper of l uted i�f im systems were installed pr sewerage 9 Y in the proposed development. He also questioned as to whether a water l i ne wou I d . be' -i ns to l I ed - i n the road easement across ` - Lot 74 to provide water to the four .home sites which presently exist along the western edge of this proposal. Duane Ca r l do , a resident of Cherry Lynn Estates spoke in opposition to the'. extens i.on of Cherry Lynn Road to -the south f to tie in with this deVelo mentR p - - Morris B randen re'i terated Carlon's comments . and also indicated a con f 1. i ct with the proposed park area since a portion of this y area . was to Have been -or i g i n-a l l y : been ' set ' as i de by. the l developer. of Cherry-. Lynn Estates as Homeowners Park for that subdivision Apparently this has never been completed and considerable discussion fo'l low' ed on that topic. Mrs.- W iese, ' an adjacent landowner, on the north, who .control s part of the access from the proposed development site to the end -of Cherry Lynn Road stated . that she '. was in opposition of the plan to tie' this development into Cherry Lynn Road. Morris B randen further indicated that -the east side of this development was subject to standing water dur i ng certain parts of the year and that this section of -the development had been f i I led- in 'at one t i me and is not real ly su i table for development* Sharon Hanford, an adjacent owner, questioned the locations of the roads on the prel i mi nary plat,. say ng that she felt there was a..conf I .i ct wi th..'C&G Plywood's property. Bi 1I Doyle, Project Surveyor,said that that would be investigated further and doubted that .such conflicts existed* Duane Ca r l In stated that this area was subjected to high g round water level in'. .1974. Mr. Robb ns , also an adjacent owner, stated opposition to -the through street to connect, with .Cherry Lynn Road. He stated that they presently have. a real traffic problem with the n umbe r of cars and kids-.' Mrs..- Wi6e stated concern as to whether the zoning would be { sat i .s facto-ry to cont rol bu i l-ding sites and if not suggested that very strong covena nt s ' be' emp` 16.mi en to d . Walter Ord stated that he. ,felt that tests on the wa ter . tab I e shoul d:. be made during periods of high ground .water and ' not based 'on to-s is . taken th i s ''yea r.. - 0 One other un i dent i f i ed.. res i dent of Cherry Lynn Estates, indicated ,that he feI t Protect i-ve Covenants were in effect that control I ed future access or use of Cherry Lynn Road beyond those lots .presently served Following a point by po i nt' evaluation of the Staff Report, .Fran 0 ll end i ke moved that Kings Loop Subd i-v i s i on be approved subject to the following' cond i t,i ons : - 1. That' water must be' provided by the' Evergreen dater System, 2 .. that ' a I l sewer systems and septic systems , * etc . be approved by the State Department of: Health with -particular consideration given to the. comp l i ca.t i ons that may exist on this pa rt i cu l a r site 3.. that the subdivision be redesigned to provide a more suitable locat i on for the ' Montana' Power Gas Li he Easement, Lots .51 h rough'. 55 *,on King `s .Bay be read j.us ted ' for w i der '. f ron Cage on the cul-de=sac and that Lot 74 'be revised -to accommodate the 40' easement as i nd.i cated on Certificate of Survey'. A,11'.. 46: that, .a con t i-nuat-i on of the .K i ng' s Way Road and •. Cherry Lynn _Road ' be p rov i ded. for with . a 601. easement , noting that this -may be d i.ff i cu] t due toy, owner�sh i p and access agreements k as . indicated. in' the 4. P. D. Staff Report, 5, that Restrictive Covenants be required, as to all construction of 'homes and/or mobile homes placed on said lots. Covenants' must first be. approved by the -appropriate planning board and/or- governing body, .-Permanent foundations shall be req u i red .-on mob i' l e home and. a 1.1 l i v i n g s pa ce mus t be 800, s qua re feet of ground :floor- area for_.a spl i t entry home and 1,000. square 1.1 feet on a single level home. I Item 8 in the' Covenants should be further amended to add that any change i n . the Covenants must first be approved by the appropr i ate .. pl ann i ng or governing body or their heirs or successors. 6.. that f i"nal acceptance -of the. proposed park dedication be i ent, on fur con her -discuss ion and review wi-th the Count contingent, up f t y Park Board, and E 79 that roads be built to County standards and dedicated to the County. Seconded' by' Dorothy Garvin: motion carried. Hidden Meadows -.Mobile Jim Mahn b r i e f l y ou t I i ned the p roposed deve I opment a nd rev i ewed Home Park.- the S to f f.-Repo rt. a nd recommenda.t i ons an d . then read I et to rs f rom adjacent owners and. area landowners with respect to this development. Mr:. Dean Mar-q`uardt, .Surveyor and Engineer, for the proposal , gave comments dealing with the . deve l opment and stated that he felt the dowel opment was not out of place or ,out of character for the ' g i ven ' l ocat i on Mr. Jim Lawrence, an adjacent landowner, provided several points of information dealing with the* number ' of homes on the existing Collier' Lane and Caroline Roads and stated .that a traffic problem did .exist due to ,the narrow surface wid.th's:..of -the. existing roads. He also indicated with reference, to potential flood problems that he rowed ' a boat across the mob i l e - home park area in 1964 and also felt that there would have- be'. ethical and moral 1 issues involved here and felt -that- the: mob i le home park development would - comp l ete l y ' and totally adversely affect the :nature and cha ratter of the area. 4 Mr . ' B i I l F ra tt indicated that he ' had not rece i ved '. the'. certified letter notifying him of this development .and fol lowing discussion with members of the Board and the.' Staff it was. found.=. that his name had been spelled orau in the' County Records and -in fact that he had. not rece i ved ' adequate notice. This brought on considerable.- discussion and Walt Griffin -asked Mr. Fratt if he wished' to .exert i se-',h i s right to.: postpone any action on this development until he could be ' g i ven ' t h e proper notification ras requi-red by law .. He Waived', -that right and f u rthe r stated that there eras -a f l ood i 'n g . p rob l em and a fire protection problem i- n this vic1nity. 'Mr. Vern B r-onsvn; a resident to the east of this development, 'Stated', that , he -felt there was a total lack of room for this development to. be,' incorporated. He stated that he presently has.-, a 2 acre parcel and. -was requ i red to put in .420.. of dra i of i el d for se.ptic :system . and didn't see how' f ac i.1 i t i es for an additional 19, tra i Iers couI d be' i ncorporated' on three acres of . land. At this point H a rvey ' Knebe l ' s tated that- he was in opposition to the development but would abstain from voting because he owns 3. land in the general area. A resident of 208. Caroline Avenue questi oned' the possibility of a .continuation of. this type of development up and down these roads if this -development were app roved ' and also felt that mobile home parks were a commercial use and should be located on commercial property. Mrs. Lloyd Soders t rom:, one of the owners of the property proposed for development,, stated that at present 5 school children reside in the. existing development and that there are no dogs except one old dog wh Vch belongs to them and she indicated that one ad j a cent .landowner has an improperly fenced area for s stud horse. At this point someone raised the question of. Protective Covenants which were enforced on .. Z i mwa l d Tracts. Following further discussion by several people who were in attendance,.,, it- was learned that the Covenants had been declared void as of a court action some years previous., Mrs.Fuller', ter, a res i dent of the vicinity, stated_that she felt there were very few open spaces left and th.e area presently had enough trailers. Following, further, discussion by.. members of the Boards Ray Lybeck moved t'o deny, proposed development because the development density, exceeded the.: recommended Comprehensive Plan density by .14 d . u . p .,a.. The motion was seconded by Garmen Meadows: --motion carried with Harvey Knebe l abstaini ng, Meadow H i 11 s Subdivision Jim ,Rohn presented the Staff Re:port He briefly reviewed the development proposal One resident of the general area stated, he had no opposition to the development but was conce rned 'that the number of proposed lots in the development b'e i ng. served' by :,septic .systems could have adverse effects on .water qual-i ty . of drainages. i n ..the area. 1 Following discussion by members of the'Board' clarifying. ownership on adjacent l ands and certain easements . involved i n .obtaining access to the area, Dorothy Garven ' moved '. that the:. development be. approved as pe r . the fo 1.1 ow ng con i t i ohs: 1 e , That al I water and sewer systems be:'approved ' by'. the State Department of Health 2. that the developer provide for fire fighting facilities in conjunction w i t,h th.e ' proposed community .water system, reference letter from Smi th vaI I ey' Vol,unt,eer' Fi re Department, attached, 3. that '.the. deve l ope. r petition. the ' Board.. of County Commissioners to have. the' presently unzoned portion of the development c l as s i f:i ed _ as an R-2 Residential Zoning District with the'., res.tr i ct i ons as set. out in the . i4 Flathead :.County . Comprehensive �_Zon i ng Regu' l at ions, and 4.