10-25-7710-25-77
Minutes of 10-11777 -
& 9-27-77 approved.
Communications:-
Ki-ng's Loop . -
H i dden -Meadow -
M.H.P.
Kalispell Zoning
Regulations.
Flathead County
Comprehensive Plan
Status.
Public Hearings:
Greenacres-No. 2
Subdivision.
The regular meeting of the Kalispell City -County Planning
oard was held.Tuesda.y, October.25.A,1�77 at 7:30 p.m. in the
Flathead County Courthouse.,East, 723 5th. Avenue East, Kalispell,
Montana, Community.Room;_
Members Present: Others Present;
Dorothy Garvin 2 APO Staff Representatives
Dale W. Haarr 16 Guests
Jay Shropshire
Walter. A. Griffin .Jr.
harles L. Hash _
W, J. _Lupton
Harvey Kn.ebel
The- .meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Dale Haarr
at 7:37 P.M.
Minutes of the 10-.11-77 meeting and 9-27-77 meeting were reviewed
and Dorothy Garvin moved to approve thew as presented; seconded
by Jay Shropshire:_ motion _carried.
Jim Mohn read the letter from the Board of.County Commissioners
with -regards to the conditional approval statement on King's Loop
Subdivision and a letter addressed.to Walt Griffin Jr., Acting
President of the Planning Board, with regards to Hidden Meadow
Mobile Home Park. Following reading of the letter, Vice
-Chairman Dale Haarr, suggested that this be placed under old
business to be taken up later in the meeting.
Steve Petrini advised the Board on the current status with
regards to the proposed City Zoning Regulations. He indicated
to the Board that the. Council had amended the original
regulations and those :amendments had been approved by the
Council and the next step was to have the changes typed in on
the mag cards, which is being done through the cooperation of
the City Attorney's Office. He asked the Board if they would
assume the cost of typing the corrections on the mag cards and
indicated that there were approxi.mately.10.hours of work
involved in the project and based on past expenses with regards
to the original typing .of the regulations, that the cost would
be approximately $5.00 per hour.. Discussion by members of the
Board followed with regards .to status of the financial obli-
gations thattheBoard had made up to this point in time.
After some additional discussion Walt Griffin moved that the
Board accept the financial cost._of-icorrecting the mag cards
for the Kalispell: Zoning Regulations; seconded by Dorothy
.Garvin: motion carried.
.Steve presented Part I and Part It, Flathead County
Comprehensive Plan and reviewed.the status to date -with
respects to action.by other planning boards and noted that the
Kalispell section of.the Plan was an excerpt from the already
existing Kalispell Comprehensive Plan only greatly condensed.
Dale Haarr opened the hearing by reading the legal description
of the property -involved and gave .it's general location and then
outlined the procedures which would be followed in taking
-testimony on the proposal.
Jim Mohn presented a brief summary on the project noting
special items with regards to future land use and potential
recreation amenities mentioned with regards to -the slough and
presented the Staff recommendations and responded to questions
on existing city boundaries as they relate to this project
and the anticipated boundaries of the city limits with respect
to the request of the developer.
Dale Haarr called for comments and or presentation from the
developer or his spokesman at which time Manny Haiges, surveyor
from Flathead Land Consultants, addressed the Board and noted
three items which were in error in the Staff Report. The first
one being the total size of the project. The Staff Report
indicated 9.93 acres and the actual acreage involved in the
project is 6.86 acres and this also related to the park
requirement aspect of the project. Mr. Haiges noted that the
total requirement for this development would be .55 acres
of parkland and according to the Staff Report which requested
1.25 acres of parkland to be dedicated this would present an
excess of .7 acres above and beyond what the developer would be
required to dedicate. At this point, Mr. Hanson presented
testimony with regards to previous tax assessments on the
property noting that approximately 1/4th of the property has been
in the City for many years and that the past tax payments reflect
a greater difference in taxes paid than what the Staff Report
indicated. He sited years 1969 through 1976 and noted that the
tax differential between the City property and the County property
was as much as $300,higher in the City than in the County.
Manny Haiges also wished to note that with regards to the creation
of the tree tracts which would lie on the -west side of the slough
area, that these parcels could be created and transferred on a
Certificate.of Survey and not subjected to the park .
requirements, with the.stipulation that these lots not be
used for building purposes. In light of this fact,.the.Planning
Board and City Council should look primarily at those parcels
noted as Lots 1 - 8 which are actually being proposed for
annexation.
At this point, Mr. Haarr called for any opponents.to the project
to state their concern. Mr. Glen Hufstetler, adjacent
landowner to the north noted some desparities relating to his
property boundaries stemming from a lack of adequate information
at the time the property was purchased with regards to
boundary locations, etc.. He wished to note that at the
present time he has a,hay shed which apparent.ly sits. in the right-
of-way_, of C Street,, which is -.to be improved by the developer
as a part of this project and also. noted that there are some
lilac trees an.d . s,o.me . f ru i;t trees, which may be affected by the
street. The question on school impact was addressed and he also
noted_h:is concern -,a bout ..what impact the. annexation of_this
development would have on,his property since he is in the
country at the present,time and feared future annexation sooner
than he wi.shed..to see It.
Mr. Loveless, an adjacent owner on the west wished to note
that he had an objection as;,to the Planning Staff, recommendation
for the park dedication; no.t;ing that he presently ;has_piroblems
with children pl;aying-,along the.;slough area and ;noting that
there is a potential vandalism threat and other nuisance
potential by encouraging use of the area as a city park.
PAP
Another landowner living just north of the project, whose address
is Woodland Court, questioned the potential for increased traffic
on Woodland Court which -is at the present time only an 18' driving
surface. He also noted that at the present time, the slough area
is being used by ducks and geese and that approximately 30 young
birds have been noted in the area in the recent past.
Mr. Johnson, who is an adjacent owner on the west, reiterated
he use of the area for ducks and noted that he and his wife
encourage this by setting out food for these birds and noted that
the slope along the slough area would present great difficulties
if attempts were made to develop as a city park facility.
See Minute/s o.j --:--
---------------------
11-8-77 4w7L Amendme,
Considerable discussion amongst the Board, the general public and
4,rLom_thiz point on
the Staff followed relating to future potential of the slough area.
to the end o6
Discussion as to possibilities of obtaining contiguous greenbelt
GRE NACRES NO. 2.
system followed noting the number of private landowners which are
involved in the length of the slough from Woodland Avenue south and
southeast to Willow Glen Drive. Following this discussion,
Charles Hash moved to recommend that the annexation to the City
of that area east of the most extreme westerly park area boundary
be approved and that there -be a park dedication requested of the
1.25 acres as shown on the plat with an easement to public
right-of-way, but that easement be restricted for administrative
access. Noting further that this park"area be limited to "scenic"
or "natural area'' type uses for the protection of the area, and
that the value of the.excess land being dedicated for park which
is in excess of that required by the statute be established in the
applicant's proposal with evidence of the donation to the City,
and that the water and sewer systems be approved by the City of
Kalispell and County Sanitarian.- Motion seconded by Harvey Knebel.
B. J. Lupton as part of that motion that we recognize the value
of this area and that we propose that the integrity of this slough
area both to the north and to the south be maintained as a
natural park area to the best of what is economically and
environmentally feasible. Seconded by Harvey Knebel.
Walt Griffin wished to note that the annexation of the property
would be further conditioned upon the zoning as No. 1 Residence
District as is the immediately contiguous city property zoning,
and that those roads or streets shown on the plat be built to
City Council standards prior to city acceptance. CThese comments
were accepted as friendly amendments to Mr. Hash's. motion, as
seconded by Harvey Knebel. Question was called for; motion carried.
Hidden Meadow
Under old business, the Board referred back to correspondence from
Mobile Home Park.
the County Commissioners with regards to Hidden.Meadow Mobile Home
Park. Dale Haarr asked Jim Mohn to give a brief summary of the
history of the project and sequence of events;leading to the
letter from the County.Commissioners.
Jim briefly gave a summary of the Staff, Report and reevaluation of
the project and attempted to summarize the feelings of.the landowners
and participants.at -the public hearing the.previous month,
The Board attempted to evaluate the situation at hand and it was
recognized that only three of the members present at this.meeting
had voted on the original motion at the previous meeting.
3
B. J.. Lupton commented that he felt ,the Board, or at least himself,
had done an inadequate job with respects.to the motion that had
been voted. on at the pub) i.c hearing which resulted in the
Board's recommendation for denial based on density. He noted
that there were several other factors which had .been considered
but had not been incorporated into the motion and felt that
the Board had been inadequate in that respect. Discussion of
several alternatives which included holding a special meeting,
or requesting the developer to grant an extension of the required
time period were discussed.
Pat Sherlock was asked whether he felt that his client would
consent to an extended review period in order to provide .the
Board with adequate opportunity to meet .again as a group and
hopefully�ha.ve those members, which are presently absent, to have
the opp.ortunity_to review the request made by the Commissioners.
Mr. Sherlock reviewed his involvement in the project and indicated
that he felt his client may be willing to grant the extension, but
felt that the outcome of another meeting would probably be the same
as what was being expressed at this meeting, citing that some of
the other comments noted in the Planning Board's original letter
of recommendation to the Commissioners, had not been resolved
and most factors would remain the.same with the exception that the
density of the project would be much lower and in line with the
recommended land use plan for that,area. He also asked the Board
if they had any suggestions as to changes in the Plan which would
make it acceptible to them. Discussion followed and centered on
legal reason for denial based on the criteria as outlined in
H.B. 666 for the evaluation,of development. Charles Hash
suggested that the Board's most appropriate action would be to
answer the Commissioners as directly .as possible and also address
the other factors that were considered in evaluation but not given
as reasons for denial in the planning board.'s recommendation.
Following additional discussion along these same lines it was
determined that Jim Mohn draft a letter .to the County Commissioners and
that before the letter was signed by Vice Chairman Dale Haarr, that
those members who were absent at this meeting, review it and
endorse or recommend changes before it was signed by Chairman Haarr
and forwarded to the.County Commissioners. .This appeared to be an
acceptible solution to those present and. Jim indicated that this would
be done. There being,,no further business, meeting adjourned at
ll:00.p.m.
J.E.Mohn/ee
11-2-77
We the undersigned, members of the Kalispell City-County'Planning Board,
do hereby waive notice of meeting and consent that a meeting of the Board
be held, Tuesday, October 25, 1977, at 7:30 p.m. in the Flathead County
CCourthouse East, Meeting Room, 723 5th. Avenue East, 'Kalispell, Montana.
(�h v
w "A �,